▶ 0:16:27e e
▶ 0:17:00on Chon but I told them that I really agree with you know with the decision and so I think we got that fourth right I think it's fourth so I don't know if you wanted to hold it I think we could work on it we'll probably do
▶ 0:17:49sir committee will come to order without objection the chair is authorized declare recess at any time pursuant to committee rule 2 house rule 11 Clause 2 the chairman May postpone further proceedings today on the question of approving any measure or matter or adopting an amendment for which a recorded vote is ordered uh now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina Mr not to lead us in the pledge allegiance of the United States of America to the
▶ 0:18:19stands Nation indivisible liy and justice for all thank the gentleman from North Carolina pursuant to notice I call up HR 1789 the promptly ending political prosecutions executive retaliation act for purpose of a markup and move that the Committee reported favorably to the house the clerk will report the bill hr17 not objection the bill will be considered as read and open for Amendment at any point the chair now recognize the gentleman from South Carolina Mr Fry the sponsor of the legislation for an opening statement
▶ 0:18:50thank you Mr chairman uh HR 1789 the promptly ending political prosecutions and executive retaliation Act of 2025 would place a check on radical left-wing prosecutors or really any Prosecutor's ability to bring politically motivated criminal cases before judges and juries that may be biased the last few years have brought about outrageous and unprecedented moves from Rogue prosecutors uh to Target uh one of our nation's top leaders for their own political gain for the first time in American history a former president was indicted
▶ 0:19:20and faced with criminal charges after president Trump announced his 2024 presidential campaign he was indicted not just once twice or three times but four uh and two of these indictments have come from Rogue District Attorneys looking to build up their profile as this committee has explored last Congress and make a name for themselves on the national stage in April of 2023 Manhattan da Alvin Bragg sentenced or announced a 34C count felony indictment against President Trump in the New York state supreme court instead of Prosecuting real crime in New York
▶ 0:19:50as we witnessed in this committee uh uh that they continue to face da Alvin Bragg made president Trump the focal point of his campaign and then again in August of 2023 Fulton County DA Fanny Willis brought about a 41c count uh indictment against 19 defendants including president Trump in the Fulton County Superior Court Willis even told the news outlets quote we've been working for two and a half years we're ready to go end quote they could have brought charges years earlier but decided to do it as soon as president Trump
▶ 0:20:20announced his reelection campaign these politically motivated District Attorneys did everything they could to keep Donald Trump out of the White House and well we all know that it back fired uh as the American people gave president Trump a resounding mandate to restore our country's greatness the American people saw the political persecution led by the Biden Harris Justice Department's two-tier justice system that extended to Democrat local and State offices these were bogus indictments and our rule of law must be protected the president is the leader of the Free World the level here is not the same a small
▶ 0:20:51town prosecutor coming in and attacking our commander-in-chief is laughable we don't do this in America we never have and we can't continue to allow America to turn into a country where candidates running for office are prosecuted out of purely political reasons these prosecutors have weaponized our justice system against its political opponents and it is congress's duty to respond which is why I've introduced uh this bill and a similar bill from last Congress which would give both current and former presidents and vice presidents the ability um not a mandate but the ability
▶ 0:21:21to remove their civil or criminal cases against them from a state court to a federal district court the new bill also expands the eligibility ility to remove cases uh to that also to current and former US officers who are acting within the scope of their official duties or apparent legal Authority related to their office the bill also codifies the immunity recognized by the US Supreme Court for official acts carried out by federal officials the federal interests implicated by civil actions or criminal prosecutions brought
▶ 0:21:51against current or former presidents and vice presidents are pretty overwhelming uh federal court is the appropriate form to adjudicate cases with such a strong Federal Nexus federal judges as an example enjoy life tenure that is largely free from outside in interference in their decisions by contrast state courts State uh State Court judges are readily subjected to political influences as many of them are often elected uh or directly appointed and or serve shorter terms in federal
▶ 0:22:21court the jury pool is often drawn from a larger and more diverse District the rules of jury selection uh are much more robust than in State Court this helps to ensure that the political biases of one locality do not improperly influence the jury and its decisions so we must ensure that state courts are not weaponized against current or former presidents vice presidents or us officers this is common sense we can and should act to provide this option of a fair playing field for legal proceedings for all presidents
▶ 0:22:51vice presidents US officers former and current I urge support and Mr chairman I yield back gentlem back we now recognize the ranking member for his opening statement uh Mr chairman thank you very much uh so the legislation before us today would amend the law so that a president or vice president or even a former president or vice president can remove any state civil or criminal prosecution when that case is brought quote for or relating to any act while
▶ 0:23:21in office okay any act whether it's public private official unofficial with the core functions office within the Outer Perimeter or having nothing to do with the office at all for any act while in office or where the state courts consideration of the claimer charge May interfere with hinder burden or delay the execution of the duties of the president or vice president in other words every conceivable case will be removable so look what we're talking about and I hope uh
▶ 0:23:51my Republican friends will listen as well as uh as well as the Democratic members we're talking about destroying state criminal jurisdictional Authority and power over Federal officials that's really what this bill is about because it's saying that the president or vice president or former president or VP can never be prosecuted because of course it could conceivably hinder the execution of their office of course it's any Act One office so what we're talking about is
▶ 0:24:21um should a president or vice president ever or former ever be able to be charged chared with a State Crime including assault rape murder uh fraud you name it and they're basically saying no that that has always got to go to the friendlier terrain of a federal court so let's re remind ourselves of what the Genesis of all this is on May 30th of last year uh Donald Trump was convicted in New York state court of 34 felony counts
▶ 0:24:52for falsifying business records to hide his hush money payments to women who had he'd had interfere with when he tried to have the case removed to Federal Court the judge found that quote hush money payments were private unofficial acts outside the bounds of executive Authority and thus not subject to the Constitutional removal requirements it had nothing to do with his office um and the defense was not
▶ 0:25:22a federal defense it was just a a conventional Alibi defense that that you would find in the normal course of things in a state court Trump also has charges pening against him in Georgia State Court after Trump called the Georgia Secretary of State Brad raffensberger famously asking him to just find me 11,780 votes he was charged with election subversion and racketeering under George Al lot he withdrew his application to remove his case to Federal Court after his C defendant
▶ 0:25:52our former colleague Mark Meadows was found not to have met the quite low threshold to move his case to federal court and that the actions outlined in indictment were not taken as part of Meadow's role as a federal official in other words there was no federal defense available making this a federal question um last time this bill appeared at a mark up candidate Trump was just starting his campaign he'd not yet been convicted of those 34 felony counts his
▶ 0:26:22codefendants had not plad guilty in 2023 this was simply a bill to get the cases against him out of state court and into the federal system where Trump and his lawyers could try to shop for the judges they wanted today's Bill looks very different because House of Republicans have a new goal they want to make sure Trump is not held to the same standards as anybody else in in essence that he's Above the Law my colleague's solution to Trump's personal legal problems which were created by Him is not to make
▶ 0:26:53him all but Untouchable in the American judicial system this bill would require require a federal court to dismiss any case against the president or vice president or former president or VP um that become subject to removal and that's any case in the state court system um the 2025 version of this bill is an autocratic Christmas tree designed to ensure that nobody in Trump's orbit from Trump and JD Vance to Elon Musk and Mark meow is held accountable
▶ 0:27:23in State Court uh that is completely incompatible with the idea that none of us is above the law it's an assault on State's rights it's an assault on federalism it's incompatible with the Constitution and it does not do justice to the hard-fought principle that nobody in America is above the law I oppose this bill I encourage my colleagues to do the same and I will um yield back to you Mr chairman I think the ranking member for his opening
▶ 0:27:53statement the chair now recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina for the purpose Pur of offering a amendment in the nature of a substitute thank you Mr chairman I have an amendment at the desk the clerk will report the amendment amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 1789 offered by Mr Fry of South without objection the amendment in the nature of a substitute would be considered as read and shall be considered base text for the purpose of the amendment the chair now recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina to explain his Amendment uh M Mr chairman
▶ 0:28:23this this amendment adds the year uh to the title of the bill and it's not intended in any way to alter Al the substance uh of the bill I yield back who seeks recognition who seeks recognition strike the last word Mr chairman the G I have an amendment at the sorry never mind we we'll take the strike the last word first if that's possible uh the gentleman uh from Tennessee is recognized thank you Mr chair we discussed this bill
▶ 0:28:53yesterday in what are hearing and it made me think of critical race Theory um the critical race theory is about educational scientific historical knowledge of the past which some people thinks is disturbing because it disturbs them to think that we had slavery in this country that we had Jim Crow for about 80 years that we didn't allow blacks to vote forever unless they could count all the peas in a in a jar uh so we didn't do we kind kind a critical race
▶ 0:29:23there we didn't like the idea that we killed so many Native American Indians and it was almost a genocide we want to get rid of that too this is critical law theory the Republicans don't want people and Donald Trump doesn't want people to know that he was convicted felon and he wants to find any way in the world to end that and he's wants to say I didn't do anything wrong I'm I'm perfect I'm the greatest guy in the world everything happens with me he got convicted on 34 counts felonies by juries that
▶ 0:29:54every single juror said guilty guilty guilty guilty guilty guilty Donald Trump is guilty and no matter what you do with this law he's guilty and history will recorded as such but what you're trying to do is do his work to have critical law theory and to erase what is a fact in Federal in courts the state court did it in Georgia because yeah that's where we called the governor and said just find me 10,734 votes I want to change Georgia's election I want you to cheat in Georgia and get me some votes so I can have the votes to become
▶ 0:30:24president that's a Georgia case he was interfering with Georgia's state election in Georgia state law to get georg's electoral votes should have been in state court but no Donald Trump doesn't want anybody think he did anything wrong so he wants to remove it to a federal court maybe get it into a court judge like ien Canon that'll go yes s Mr Trump what you want that's what they want they want judges who have no guts who have no respect for their oath of office like Eileen Cannon who embarrassed us with putting off the the
▶ 0:30:54classified documents case and who did that's repudiated by the court of appeals they found her actions to be sophomoric at best these bills are absurd and for us to be doing them shows us to be supplicants we take an oath to support Constitution yeah we can change laws but this isn't about this is about critical law theory critical law theory no Donald Trump did nothing wrong Donald Trump in fact should have been on the Supreme Court because he's smarter
▶ 0:31:25than everybody he knows the law and never would violate it CU he knows it better than any of us well BS I yield back my time the gentleman yield will will you y yes I yield to Mr Mr Goldman I thank the gentleman um I just I have a question for uh my colleague Mr Fry if this is remove if if a state case is removed to Federal Court uh what law applies well it's the
▶ 0:31:55it's the state law but the process is uh under under Federal jurisdiction so we already do this uh for ambassadors for members of Congress that's how the current law exists as it stands and so uh this would extend those same uh this the same federal statute uh to former members or excuse me former presidents and vice presidents obviously right I mean I I think the law would still apply the same Federal question Doctrine still applies this is
▶ 0:32:25this bill is very clearly designed not to actually correct a problem but to Simply defend Donald Trump and perpetuate the absolute whitewashing that the Republicans have doubl tripled quadruple down on in falty to Donald Trump that somehow these were political prosecutions and
▶ 0:32:56investigations and the only evidence of that is that the defendant said it that's all you have you have no actual evidence of any politicization or weaponization Mr if you look sir I I I I reclaim my time if if you look at the actual indictments if you look at the mara Lago warrant there is not
▶ 0:33:26an objective judge prosecutor or anyone else who understands criminal law who would say there's not enough evidence to charge or to go forward with a search warrant and all you are doing is trying to create a monarchy for Donald Trump and that's what you have been doing by yielding all of your power to him for the last six weeks the gentleman's time has expired I now recognize the
▶ 0:33:56gentleman from South Carolina who just write the last word the gentleman's recognized for 5 minutes thank you I was going to respond that you said that this was not Mr Goldman this was not uh politically motivated but we know that to be the case in fact you live in the jurisdiction of Alvin Bragg you campaigned with Alvin Bragg who campaigned on going after Donald Trump to say he never campaigned on going after Donald Trump G motivated um is is not based in reality this absolutely was there was coordination with the Biden doj that was both in the Georgia case
▶ 0:34:27uh and the New York case and so to say that that it wasn't and that we're just making it up really kind of goes against the the overwhelming evidence to suggest that that's exactly what they were doing to begin with will the gentleman yield for a question that I yield back to the chair would the gentleman yield for a question no to me to you Mr chairman of course so many questions so little time so I there were a few things said and I I want to understand so that everyone understands
▶ 0:34:58currently a federal judge whose a similar event occurs would be removed to federal court is that correct correct and if there's ever been a friendly venue it would be for a federal judge and a federal court and yet that's been the law for a long time right correct and currently if it were you or any of the gentlemen on the other side it could be removed to federal court in many cases correct and again it's not a mandate it's an option that you could remove and so it is up to the the defendant uh in
▶ 0:35:28a civil or criminal case to take to take that option to remove and for those who haven't practice in federal court it is not uncommon for federal judges to be overseeing cases that include State causes would the gentleman yield for sure yes okay so there's nothing unusual here it applies to other federal Offices uh just one second where're we're extending it only to the president um let me go through a couple of pieces of History
▶ 0:35:58though if I could and ask you questions uh President Obama ordered and struck a uh uh an American citizen on foreign soil and killed him you remember that yes Mr okay terrorist but he wasn't currently shooting at us or anything like that um he was tried I guess in the international uh court but we didn't recognize that nobody uh you know picked a state where this terrorist was from and and you
▶ 0:36:28know tried to prosecute the president but if they did without this law isn't it conceivable that it wouldn't be removed to federal court and you could have a a venue that somehow would think they could try the president for his official acts that's exactly right and the gentleman uh was referring I think the ranking member was referring to this idea of dismissal is there anything here that dismisses cases that is not consistent with the US Constitution based on or with the decision
▶ 0:36:58of the Supreme Court no that I think that goes beyond the bounds of the legislation this is just a removal mechanism uh this isn't a removal and dismissal mechanism okay now not having been in District Court all over the country would this case be removed in the jurisdiction in which the state occurs in other words if it's in Georgia would there still be a Georgia federal court hearing it it wouldn't be removed somehow to Nova Scotia right correct or Greenland correct Mr well unless of the 51st St okay so
▶ 0:37:28just for people that haven't you know served on a lot of juries the pool of federal juries in Georgia is the same pool whether it's state or federal correct correct so the same individuals are try the only question is do the ladies and gentlemen on one side of the aisle Don't Trust Federal Judges but they trust local judges who run for office versus federal judges corre correct and and have all the the potential for political influence based on donations based on political party and the like
▶ 0:37:59okay so really all you're doing is removing it from the political process to an apolitical process and keeping it in the same geographic area that the case has brought but removing it to Federal Court correct and and if you as an accomplished lawyer yourself uh Mr chairman you know that uh the jury selection in a federal system the defendant um or the plaintiff uh know much more about the potential jurors potential biases the potential to obviously strike those jurors you
▶ 0:38:29want a fair and impartial jury you know much more about those jurors in a federal system because the system is much more structured uh than than in a state court State Court you show up in the jury pools there and you're uh often times trying to use your best judgment on who would be a fair juror and so this again gives the former president the former vice president the option to remove if they so choose and isn't the former vice president still limited to this provision of the interference in other words it it's
▶ 0:38:59not it's not everything it's it's based on on acts related that could a former vice president acts relating to any act well in office so it's it's not any act it's not for life on former presidents right it's just for for those uh for the acts well in office correct I thank you and thank you for yielding thank you Mr chairman who else sees recognition the ranking you wanted to hit him I I think everybody's gone are are you I at some point I would like to move to strike the last word
▶ 0:39:29but I defer to the ranking out of deference to the ranking member of the full committee I recognize him for to strike the last I'm just going to follow up on your line of questioning and then uh we can go to Mr Goldman if the gentleman from South Carolina if he could come back if maybe somebody could get him to I I would love to pursue the questioning but here's where I'm going with this while they're getting him Mr chairman I think you asked exactly the right question you you were saying um all this is is a removal provision right but it's not just a removal provision it's a removal
▶ 0:39:59and dismissal provision if you look at um if you look at e on page five of the bill it says in any action subject to removal under paragraph five which is current president or vice president or six which is former of section 1442a such case shall be dismissed unless rebutted by clear and convincing evidence establishing that the continued pendency of the state claim or charge would not in any way interfere hinder
▶ 0:40:30burden or delay the execution of the duties of the president or vice president and what I'd like to ask uh the the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina is can you imagine any case where a president or vice president or forers would lose that in saying this is going to hinder or burden or delay my execution of Duties who wants to be in a criminal prosecution of any kind so it's a guaranteed removal and dismissal because it must be dismissed it shall be dismissed unless you can prove it's not going to affect their life in any
▶ 0:41:00way would the gentleman yield by all means um I I I would agree that if you took it out of context just looking at it here but the context I hope we all agree this is a Supreme Court ruling we're codifying what the court has already said and as to a former member which the president was when charges were brought the standard would by definition be different because he wasn't executing his activities during those four years so the actual dismissal of those cases reclaim my time for a second
▶ 0:41:30if that's true then why should the logic of this apply to him at all why should it apply to former officials in any case because the the removal would apply but not the uh the the basis to dismiss that's where the two you know as the gentleman probably knows uh currently prime minister Netanyahu spends three days a week in court because they have no such law in Israel uh at a time in which he's defending his country in in a war we're seeking to
▶ 0:42:01make sure that we minimize to the greatest extent possible 50 plus places States in which people could bring cases against a current president and if they bring it against a former president for Axwell in office limited to Axwell in office that it simply be removed to federal court but I think we the Supreme Court decision on dismissal is very different for a former president because they don't meet that standard of hindering his execution of his job okay well the just to reclaim my time there if
▶ 0:42:31um we're talking about a former official it shouldn't apply at all because they're no longer in office um and um in the New York case Trump claimed that it it interfered with his presidential duties nonetheless um but um but look I would say this this is this shows spectacular disrespect for state courts state constitutions State prosecutors in state law I mean I'm really shocked that this is even something we're
▶ 0:43:01considering to obliterate state criminal jurisdiction over crimes that exist within their state and if they're uh you know in some ways uh manufactured or invented the state systems are just as capable of vanquishing uh fantasy prosecutions as a federal court is and much better at interpreting and enforcing state law than a federal court would be and gentleman yield yes I would I I just wanted to
▶ 0:43:31clarify one of the gentlemen on the other side said that the state judges are elected some are many are appointed just like federal judges that's absolutely right and so I mean this does reflect a basic uh structural trampling of State Court and state legal systems but I think that the really sneaky provision is this dismissal one because the overwhelming presumption is that it will be dismissed the moment you get it into
▶ 0:44:01federal court unless you can somehow prove that this will not in any way affect uh the performance of the duties of you know the of the president or vice president and if they're no longer president or vice president why are they getting the benefit of this in any way at all so I I do agree with uh Mr Goldman that this seems like a a very political bill that's just meant to um you know Curry favor with or perhaps soothe the hurt feelings of Donald Trump
▶ 0:44:32he was in those situations because of actions he did he was the one who said just find me 11,780 votes nobody else made him do that he made his staff go ahead and call Secretary of State raffensberger he was in trouble of New York because of the hush money payments he made and then he cooked the books in New York that was his decision I mean let's show some uh Civic self-respect here and acknowledge that people are responsible for their own actions I yield back to you Mr chair thank the gentlemen who else think the
▶ 0:45:02word I move to strike the last word the gentleman's recognized for five minutes thank you I I want to just pick up on what the ranking member was saying and uh a couple of things first of all this is not simply codifying a Supreme Court decision nor is this removal for a federal court to cons consider a state law claim and I would point my colleagues
▶ 0:45:33to page four uh section B one for determination of immunity saying the nature elements or any other aspect of the charge or claim made by or under authority of state law basically any state law claim is immune so it's not interpreting state law in just simply in a federal court if you want to bring a bill that simply clarifies
▶ 0:46:03that the rule for judges and members of Congress should be the same federal uh official the president and the vice president we can discuss that this is nowhere close to that this is going even further than the Supreme Court case because it also addresses civil cases not just criminal cases cases and it also expands the immunity um to to
▶ 0:46:34through both dismissal as the ranking member pointed out and there are other references to dismissal but beyond what the Supreme Court says but even more importantly it goes so much further than what you're representing and I I would just urge my colleagues not to continually overreach in falty to Donald Trump we are happy to discuss thoughtful reasonable uh legislation that preserves the
▶ 0:47:04rights of a president and a vice president why are former presidents and vice presidents even included in this well the gentleman yield yes I I've got one theory about that but I would love to be illuminated by someone on the other side of the aisle but uh Donald Trump in the New York case was saying that even though he was no longer president the the fact that he had to stand trials interfered with the fact that he was running for office again and was involved in other political activities so I think they put in former
▶ 0:47:34presidents and vice presidents in the event that they wanted to be running for some other office right and of course if you expand that to its logical conclusion every one of us is always running always running so if the argument is oh well you can't charge a elected official or former elected official because they're running for office Don Donald Trump very clearly announced his campaign extremely early
▶ 0:48:05and previewed the fact that he was doing it so that he could argue that these investigations against him were interfering with this this was a defense that he created and then everyone on the other side of the aisle bought into it but I do want to just answer my colleague from South Carolina on the New case which I would point out there was no assertion or allegation that the special council's two cases
▶ 0:48:35were there was any evidence of politicization uh he did not mention the Georgia case so let's just focus on the New York case Alvin Breg never campaigned on getting Donald Trump never said I am going to get Donald Trump I am going to go after Donald Trump never if you have a quote of his please I urge you to bring it to me never happened false secondly I don't know what coordination between doj
▶ 0:49:05and the Manhattan DA's office you are talking about but I can tell you that as a federal prosecutor for 10 years I coordinated I spoke to State prosecutors all the time we shared evidence all the time that's how prosecutions work sometimes you will charge it in State Court sometimes times you will charge it in federal court but I I don't even know what allegations you're talking about I haven't seen any evidence any actual support
▶ 0:49:36other than the fact that a former doj official joined the prosecution team in the Manhattan District Attorney's office I I I don't understand how that is the doj coordinating he's no longer with the Department of Justice but you you keep making these allegations and you have no support and it's as if if you say it enough times it just becomes true but that if you say it enough times that doesn't mean there's any evidence to support what you're saying and your
▶ 0:50:06allegations are baseless that any of those prosecutions was politicized and I back I now recognize myself U I asked that Pages uh I'm sorry that an excerpt from U page 24 of our of an actual hearing perhaps you weren't there in New York but the quote is let's talk about what's waiting uh for the new DA the docket
▶ 0:50:36we know there's a trump investigation okay so here is the reference that came out of it on March 17 2021 brag indicated that if elected as district attorney he quote will hold accountable uh just a few days later on March 23rd 2021 he again boasted that he had sued the Trump Administration over 100 times in June of 2021 brag doubled
▶ 0:51:06down stating it it it that the important work that separate from any that the DA office may be looking at now in other words brag assumed office with seemingly one goal to prosecute president Trump will the gentleman yield to uh I will in a moment to say that this wasn't a determination that he didn't Cobble together misdemeanors to create a felony that he didn't
▶ 0:51:37invent something that quite frankly uh had never been done before that he didn't work around a statute of limitations is laughable having said that I'm going to because the gentleman asked me to yield time or to for a question I'm going to just ask one question all we're doing is modify in federal law federal law in the state above that because he kept quoting that from us 28 USC 1442
▶ 0:52:08it applies to any officer of the Courts of the United States or related to the act under the color of the office or performance of the duties for any officer of either house of Congress uh or related to any act in the discharge of His official duties in uh the order of the house would the gentleman suggest that we strike both of those would the gentleman take away his own ability to remove or the judges ability to remove because all we're doing is adding
▶ 0:52:38other Federal officers uh and ultimately uh covering what I think is a branch not covered by this uh 28 USC 1442 would the gentleman respond please yes uh as I mentioned to you if if that were simply all this was doing I would be happy to discuss this in in good faith would the gentleman agree that adding the decision of the Supreme Court uh and he did reference the uh the basis for uh on P page four for the basis
▶ 0:53:08of immunity and reading it carefully I think the gentleman will find that what it actually does is that it states that for purpose of determining the immunity you will not look at the nature of the charge and the gentleman did say what about murder well the the question for it would be was it official act and I I I cited President Obama's murder ordered execution of American citizen without a trial or a grand jury or any other indictment for
▶ 0:53:38actions the fact is a state court could have brought charges for that in this case it would have been removed the court would have decided that in fact the commander-in-chief made that determination and he had immunity I'm not disagreeing with the court what I'm saying here and Mr Fry's Bill clearly says is it's to be considered in federal court and the purpose the immunity question is not a question gent is automatically dismissed
▶ 0:54:08yes I will consistent with the con with the uh Supreme Court ruling yes I'll defer to the Mr Nadler thank you um what President Obama did was an official act if what president Trump was convicted for was not an official act if anyone at this table in this committee room rather violated the state law by committing murder or by theft or by fraud
▶ 0:54:39he'd be tried in the state court removable I agree with the gentleman that the allegations were not uh official act however you'll notice in this in this uh Mr Fry's legislation the removal uh has to be for an official act to be removed for a former uh president or vient president no no not for the current president but for a former president uh in other words the the discussion about what president Trump wanted removed during his campaign
▶ 0:55:10under this it doesn't change the removal during that period in which he was a former president he would have under bill as a former president the local prosecution would have been removable under current law law it is not removable nor should it be a violation of state law should be prosecuted at the state level I I think we just disagree on that who else seeks recognition you've already seen I think I've already spoken
▶ 0:55:40y Mr Johnson thank you I yeld to the gentleman from New York thank you to the gentleman from Georgia um Mr Isa the Constitution applies to state courts as well as federal courts so the Supreme Court's opinion applies as to official acts in State Court just as it would in federal court so I I don't understand what your concern is about the application of
▶ 0:56:11the Constitution when that also applies to state court and I would just say um Mr Isa in response to the quotes that you read uh saying that I sue Donald Trump previously is not saying that I am going to indict him and in fact the investigation that was currently um that was at the time uh alive
▶ 0:56:41was not the charge that was ultimately brought in fact Mr Bragg refused to bring the criminal case that was under investigation the line prosecutor who was investigating that case uh resigned in protest over the fact that Mr Bragg charge uh president Trump with that uh investigation
▶ 0:57:12so those quotes that you're talking about in the ongoing investigation that is referenced there was ultimately not brought by Mr brag so you can have uh complaints about what the actual charges were and I think there are are reasonable arguments to um you know to to debate about the discretion um but it certainly was found by a jury to be a conviction the president will have his appellate rights
▶ 0:57:43he he may appeal it and if your allegations about converting a misdemeanor into a felony and statute of limitations and all that stuff are true then a court would agree with you but we already have the proper system to be able to deal with that and so I I think on both scores you're you're missing the Mark here again if you want to go back just to say presidents and vice presidents should also uh 1442
▶ 0:58:13should also apply let's discuss that but that's not what this bill does with the g go ahead go ahead okay you to the I just wanted to pursue two other critical points of textual mean meaning um the the good chairman suggested that when it comes to a former president or vice president that would apply only to public acts and not private acts there's nothing in the language of the bill to suggest that on the contrary it says a former president or vice president for or relating to
▶ 0:58:43any act while in office and if that is to mean any Public Act then there should be an amendment to that effect but right now it would apply to an assault or rape with the with the gentleman yield yes I will uh if you look at page five to the gentleman from New York it says uh no court May Define or limit the scope of the duties of of an official of the Executive Office of the President and that's where I'm going right now thank you uh you know Mr nler that's the other point that's so critical and I
▶ 0:59:13I was hoping that uh Mr Fry is back Mr Fry could you if you would yield just for a quick question what was your intention when you draft drafted that language uh on page five on prohibition on limitation of scope no court May Define or limit the scope of the duties of an official of the Executive Office of the President I have some questions about that I'm sorry re ask that again I'm trying to find the page refence if you go to page five uh D
▶ 0:59:44um prohibition on limitation of scope no court May Define or limit the scope of the duties of an official of the Executive Office of the President but just while you catch up here um look here's what I'm concerned about if if you read the Court's decision in Trump versus United States the way it's structured is this that there are core functions of the president where the president is automatically absolutely immune from Criminal prosecution like the exercise of the pardon power then outside of that uh the powers
▶ 1:00:14of the president are described as official acts that might not be core functions and there he's presumptively immune and it becomes a balancing operation to look at the public interest versus the president's interest but outside of that it's non-official private acts presumably things like rape sexual assault murder theft fraud where the president um is treated like everybody else in that third tier but here it says no court that would presumably include the Supreme Court
▶ 1:00:44May Define or limit the scope of the duties of an official of the Executive Office of the President so I just want to know does that obliterate that tripartite taxonomy that we get from Trump versus United States and does the president himself um constitute an official of the Executive Office of the President look I think at the end of the day State Court should not be defining what an official Act of a federal official or former federal official should be but but this say no court so you you would amend that to say no State Court state courts no
▶ 1:01:14no no but state courts where we are at with these cases that you guys are referencing is that state courts were deciding what this what this is and no I know but I'm just asking about the the language of your bill when you say no court you do you there want to say no state court because we can amend it to say that but right now this would say no court including the Supreme Court can limit the definition of the duties of the president and that would seem to overturn that tripartite analysis coming
▶ 1:01:44from okay well uh all right gentlemen yields back who Mr gentleman from Kentucky I move to strike the last word gentleman is recogniz i' like to yield time to Mr Fry gentleman uh is recognized uh I thank the gentleman uh for yielding and I think it was discussed earlier that this was not about politics and that people campaigning for district attorneys were not campaigning on going after uh the former president now current president
▶ 1:02:15uh but that of course is bed by the evidence and I think we have a video to show just that uh whoever has this job are they going to convict Donald Trump look that that that is uh the number one issue I'm the candidate in the race who has the experience with with Donald Trump we sued the Trump Administration over a hundred times I sued Trump over a hundred times and brought a case against the Trump foundation and held him accountable holding Trump
▶ 1:02:45accountable for the Trump Foundation from exposing illegal Behavior by the Trump Foundation I do have a lot of experience uh with the former president I I led the New York State Attorney General's uh work in investigation and successful litigation against uh him and his family for their misconduct with the Trump foundation and also we we had a number of litigations more than a 100 involving the Trump Administration I led the team that held Trump and his children accountable for their misconduct with the Trump Foundation I oversaw the work
▶ 1:03:15which uh sued his administration more than 100 times I led the Attorney General's work on the Trump Foundation case where we held Trump and his family accountable when I was at the Attorney General's office I leted our work on the Trump Foundation matter I also led the team that did the Trump Foundation case uh and I've seen him upfront and seen the lawlessness that he can do started out as a civil rights lawyer then became a federal prosecutor ultimately was the number two lawyer in the New York State Attorney General's office leading the charge against the racist policies of the Trump Administration I you I I
▶ 1:03:46I believe we have to hold him accountable I've litigated with him and so I'm I'm prepared to go where the facts take me once I see them uh and hold them accountable being a rich old white man has allowed you to fade accountability in Manhattan that includes Trump and his children right we held them accountable in the Trump Foundation case my office did the Trump University case so I've seen a pattern of lawlessness over 20 years uh and so I'm inclined to believe all I see in the public domain uh and know that there's uh and believe that there's a path forward there to make a
▶ 1:04:23case so I think we go back to the basic premise of the bill is that you have a prosecutor in New York you're not worried about crime in New York Manhattan he is worried about going after the former president of the United States why because it earns him political points in a jurisdiction that that did not vote for Donald Trump and so they elected this guy to go after him despite the fact that there there are other crimes that you could be going after but resources are dedicated and so to sit here today
▶ 1:04:54and say that this has not been about politics this is about fairness in the system it's total BS to believe that that is actually the case because he said it a million times on television he campaigned on it and that is the purpose one of the huge purposes of this bill is to remove that from a fairness perspective that a jury uh in a federal system that a different system that is not rigged in a state court can go and and have a fair trial it the presumption of innocence is on a criminal defendant and
▶ 1:05:24if we do this for uh ambassadors uh if we do this for sitting presidents right now why would we not extend that to somebody when they're C when they are targeting a former president or vice president the gentlem for political points that no I yield back gentleman clein yield to the chair or to the gentleman from Kentucky Gentleman yields back gentleman from Kentucky will the gentleman from Kentucky yield I yield back to the chairman all right gentleman yields back very unfriendly over there the gentleman from New York Mo strike the last word gentleman's recognized for five minutes
▶ 1:05:54get that back Mr chair Mr chairman what we saw was Alvin brag talking about uh how he prosecuted uh as an official in I think in the AG's office he attorney general he prosecuted the Trump Foundation well the Trump Foundation let me read you a headline from December 10th 2019 Donald J Trump pays court ordered $2 million for illegally using
▶ 1:06:25Trump found ation funds the courts also found that Trump University was a fraud the court also found a separate court also found that Donald Trump sexually abused egene Carol and the judge said that's a technical term but most people would consider that rape so the fact that Alvin brg said brought up some of these uh uh prior
▶ 1:06:55actions which he had been involved in and which Trump had been involved in as a when he was a private citizen shows nothing other than that Alvin Bragg was a proper prosecutor and remember what he said on on that video he said I'm prepared to go where the facts take me that's what a good prosecutor should do and that's what Alvin brag did and the facts took him to a hush money prosecution in which the pre
▶ 1:07:25the former president was found guilty on 34 accounts and most of that was done while he was not president the only reason that this bill comprehends that he did anything while President is that some of the hush money checks were written while he was president after the fraudulent scheme had basically been completed um so
▶ 1:07:56um Alvin BR this shows nothing that but that Alvin brg is a proper prosecutor took the facts where he wanted took the uh uh took the cases where the facts indicated and in fact he was very reluctant to prosecute uh Trump his predecessor sance had initiated that he had stopped it and then decided a year later that the facts warranted reopening the case and I'll yield to Mr uh Cohen thank you for question
▶ 1:08:26yes he said something that he he he would he prosecuted or investigated Trump and Trump Family Foundation can you refresh my recollection about what the Trump Family Foundation did and what happened to them well they were found uh guilty they they were forced to pay $2 million I don't remember exactly what they did but they committed a fraud for which they had to pay $2 million was that was that the foundation that bought pictures of Donald Trump and they kept him in the Trump family and used to Foundation fund
▶ 1:08:56was it the same Foundation that maybe gave a contribution to Bondi in Florida $25,000 I don't know Mr I'll yield to the gentleman I'll yield to the other gentleman from New York thank you yes uh you are correct then and uh the the board members of that charitable Foundation were denied from ever being uh officers for a charitable foundation in New York again um and that was a previous case that is is a fact that
▶ 1:09:27uh I guess Mr Bragg was involved in that case and I I think what undermines this whole argument of politicization is what I mentioned before I don't know if Mr Fry was here but the investigation that was ongoing that he referenced I've seen the public reporting and based on that I will follow the facts and I will hold accountable he followed the facts and declined to charge that
▶ 1:09:58case if he was so intent on going after and getting Donald Trump why would he overrule the recommendation of a very experienced prosecutor who came into his office solely to investigate that case spent over a year investigating the case recommended so strongly to charge the case case that he wrote a whole book about
▶ 1:10:28it afterwards after he resigned I just don't understand how you can say that that was political when what he did is exactly what he said he was going to do follow the facts and he declined to charge the case so stop making stuff up to suit your narrative I yield back and I yield back gentleman neel's back Mr chairman does anyone else seek recognition gentleman from Georgia have a unanimous consent request reest for an article out of PolitiFact
▶ 1:10:59which uh is entitled here's what Manhattan district attorney Alvin brag said about Donald Trump during his DA campaign which was that he would continue his predecessors uh investigation and hold Trump AC accountable by the facts where they go objection anyone else seek recognition the gentleman from Maryland Mr chairman thank you I've got a Amendment at the desk clerk will report
▶ 1:11:31amendment gentleman from California reserves point in order Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 1789 offered by Mr Rasin page five page five line 11 and without objection the amendment consider is read and the gentleman's recognized to explain his Amendment Mr chairman thank you uh this follows up on the colloquy that I had with the good gentleman from South Carolina I think it uh saves at least part of the constitutionality
▶ 1:12:02of the bill um it says that no state court May Define the scope of the duties of an official of the Executive Office of the President um without that uh qualifying adjective Mr chairman I'm afraid that uh it renders the whole bill totally unconstitutional because it's saying that the Supreme Court itself cannot Define the the scope of the duties of someone in the office of the president and of course that's what Trump versus United States did in uh assigning
▶ 1:12:33you know absolute uh categorical presidential immunity to the president acting within the scope of his the core functions of his office presumptive immunity subject to a balancing test within the Outer Perimeter of official acts of the office and then extending no immunity at all when it comes to private acts but uh this provision would I think whether deliberately or inadvertently uh destroy that three-part uh analysis and say the Supreme Court can't
▶ 1:13:04Define uh the scope of the duties of the president or anybody else in the president's office as the gentleman said so I think to salvage the constitutionality of it we need to say no State Court can do that because under the supremacy clause in article 6 the Constitution and the laws adopted in pursuance thereof are the supreme law of the land and as the Supreme Court put it in Marbury versus Madison it's emphatically The Province and the duty of the Supreme Court of the Judiciary Department to say what the law
▶ 1:13:34is and so this is an attack not just on Trump versus United States but on Marbury versus Madison so with that I would submit it to the the wisdom of the committee Mr chairman I'm recognizing myself um I know that this is well-meaning uh but I I must reluctantly oppose it uh because essentially by inserting this what what's happening is it implies that the federal court can in
▶ 1:14:04fact determine orders of the president to his staff and others uh would in fact be definable by the court rather than all of it flowing back to the same standard as the president the president's use of people whether confirmed or unconfirmed but his use of people in His official Act are the are an extension of him as we can we can imagine we would certainly know that a if he ask an attorney general to do it we
▶ 1:14:34understand that just a moment but if he asked a uh uh his chief of staff to do it or somebody else uh that is not confirmed this would would neuter that so for that reason in its current form I cannot support it and I would yield to the gentleman from New York Mr chairman if the if the president of the United States robbed the bank or committed murder or any other crime
▶ 1:15:04under this bill no court the way it's written no court can Define the scope of the duty so that can be held as official action if he says so because no court May Define what the official acts what the official what what the duties are reclaiming my time uh under article two those are not the murder is not within His official duties robbing a bank is with the court would still and a Gentleman point is good but the court would still
▶ 1:15:35we're not stripping the court of its ability to interpret with all due respect the language of this uh provision D does exactly that it strips every court and that's why Mr raskins Amendment saying no State Court uh may do it makes sense because otherwise you're saying that no court May Define uh a crime as a as as not part of the duties of the president for which he is presumptively immune yeah I I I appreciate the gentleman
▶ 1:16:05uh this is you know you're you're right in one sense if the uh if the president robbed a bank uh under this he it might get removed to federal court if he did it in concert with his chief of staff it might get removed to federal court but it wouldn't change the fact that he still still would be eligible to uh under the standard of article two he still would be dealing with bank robbery so there is no dismissal and I'm I'm going to use my time briefly just to
▶ 1:16:35uh to get things maybe back to where I'd hope they would be and would continue to be this legislation is not about the current president of the United States this legislation is about past and future presidents vice presidents and I and I would hope that in the spirit of really looking at this we would all put our our our shoe on the other foot for a moment and say whether it's a past president that we uh we've all served with in the case of those
▶ 1:17:05of the top of the de or a future president all we're really doing here is trying to fairly come up with a standard that will work going forward the the history of the last few years shows that we can tie up a current or former president uh in courts uh and and run run them all over the country all over the state to multiple States and if it was done in 50 states or 20 States
▶ 1:17:35it could be even more dilatory what we're trying to do is simply do the same thing that we in Congress enjoy uh which is not to have our official acts impeded particularly during that tendency of of presidency um I will in just a second for that purpose I would ask that people consider for a moment substituting the name Biden the name Harris the name uh Obama or the name Bill Clinton and ask if
▶ 1:18:06this were in place and we were using this for other presidents and vice presidents would it really be that unfair or is it a standard that we over the long run would be better for our Republic the gentleman from New York yeah I would simply point out that under the Supreme Court decision in Trump versus us uh the current president is immune from anything but a former president ought to be subject to the law like anybody else and if and if he has done things that subject him to prosecution he ought to be
▶ 1:18:36prosecuted and I couldn't agree with the gentleman more that uh that we want there's still to be a day in court this bill does seek to limit it to uh to make it appropriate to for his official acts well he was an office or she a former vice president or president uh to be held in federal court and that's that's all we're really trying to do uh with that uh my time has expired who else seeks recognition General ladies recognized for 5 minutes thank you Mr chair I yield to uh the ranking member I thank
▶ 1:19:06the very distinguished gentle lady from Vermont um I think we're getting somewhere now Mr chairman and so let's take the personalities out of it completely all right so forget about Biden Trump everybody let's just talk about what the law should be in the United States of America so let's let's recapture Mr nadler's um bank robbery hypothetical okay so uh a president Robs a Bank in the state of uh California we'll
▶ 1:19:36go to your home state okay and he's prosecuted now under the language of this bill he can go in if you look at page two in section five here um he can go in and say one that this act took place while I was in office so I should be able to remove to Federal Court one and two I've got a second reason it's going to interfere with hinder burden or delay the execution of my duties so he if this law is constitutional and I don't think it is but assume
▶ 1:20:07it was constitutional um he gets into federal court now in federal court he moves from the removal provision to the dismissal provision and what happens there we'll go to page five of uh the gentleman's Bill where it says dismissal okay in any action subject to removal um such case shall be dismissed unless rebutted by clear and convincing evidence establishing that the continued pendency of the state claimer charge would not in any way interfere
▶ 1:20:38hinder burden or delay the execution of the duties of the president or vice president and this is also a former president or vice president okay so but the president or vice president um obviously wins on that who could say that having having a criminal bank robbery prosecution which has now been removed from State Court to Federal Court would not interfere with the execution of that President's duties and so this is a way to completely obliterate
▶ 1:21:08the existence of the crime and the criminal prosecution and the state criminal jurisdiction and here even Federal Criminal jurisdiction and then if somebody says well wait a second that's not fair this had nothing to do with the president actually executing the duties of office this is something that under Trump uh versus Anderson was in that uh or rather in US versus Trump was in that third category it was not uh it was neither in the core functions of office nor was it
▶ 1:21:38another official act outside of the core functions but it was something completely private the president you know woke up in the middle of the night and went and robbed a bank or committed you know wire fraud or whatever it was um and now if you look at the provision right above dismissal it says no no court May Define or limit the scope of the duties of an official of the Office of the President in other words it's not up to the court to say that was a private act that was a criminal act in other words what the federal law was following
▶ 1:22:09the US versus Trump case has now been vanquished and what do you know it's a get out of jail free card for president to commit any crimes at the state level so I am totally with the gentle lady yeld for one second as long as you call me the gentleman that's that's cool with me so I said g lady because she has the time the G lady oh that g lady okay I will y back to the G lady yes I I just wanted to point out that everything Mr the Mr Rasin says is applicable not only to current but
▶ 1:22:39to former president so a former president who committed uh uh bank robbery uh would still have his case removed to Federal Court uh and would not be subject to the laws of the State uh for no good reason at all and I yield back um but all I would say Mr chairman like with complete sincerity and honesty is like let's pull this bill it's an absolute monstrosity I think it's an embarrassment for any member of Congress to be voting for this
▶ 1:23:09uh and I we go back to the general lady and uh I now oh you yield to me okay um you know look uh I certainly think that we can go back and forth on some nuances of the meaning uh and unfortunately we're we are playing in my opinion uh a little a little fast and loose with the difference between current and former uh because the intent of the bill and the words as I read them do limit uh the benefit to a former
▶ 1:23:39president or vice president uh in consideration because a a former vice president does not have the standing say it's interfering with his current official duties um and using the example of a certain former president uh he did not Prevail on the question of his his campaign uh having said that uh I believe that as we go through this that if we go back to putting the hat back on and saying is
▶ 1:24:09this good going forward uh or should we strip away from the federal judges and ourselves the current and similar immunity that is in the underlying statute and I thank the G gentle lady from Vermont well seek recognition the general lady from Wyoming thank you um article two of the Constitution states that the executive pow shall be vested in a president of the United States of America in other words it is the president
▶ 1:24:39that defines the executive branch when you read this language it says that no court may take over that role no court May Define or limit the scope of the duties of an official of the executive office Office of the President the people who work in the executive office I think that what your Amendment does is a violation of separation of powers and it's a violation of article two of the Constitution General lady yield yes I will
▶ 1:25:09yeah it's always good when the The constitutionalist Specialist comes in it helps us all so what you're saying is is that the bill codifies article two of the for purposes of the Court being reminded and instructed of their limitations and the amendment would undo that that's exactly right because then it would imply that a federal court could in fact define or limit the scope of the duties of those individuals who work within the Executive Office of the President and
▶ 1:25:39that is not a federal Court's role that is for under Article 2 Section one of the Constitution that power is vested in a president of the United States of America could the gentle lady further yield for another question yes your understanding is with the current president or the last one or the next one if we don't do something like this realistically the uh the chief executive well president would continue
▶ 1:26:10to have to answer a myriad of claims in up to not just 50 States but multiple places in 50 states uh and if that tactic was used uh even more so than it may have been used in the past that you would have a president having to use non-official funds to answer a series of cases alleged not to be that way is that true that's the way that I read this and I think that it's very clear especially
▶ 1:26:40starting in 2017 when President Trump was sworn in the first time that the C courts have been used for nefarious purposes um on a variety of issues in fact yesterday we had a hearing in our constitutional subcommittee about lawfare and how law fair had been weapon weaponized against President Trump both while he was President as well as after his presidency um so again the I I guess that I'm very skeptical of the idea that people are not willing to use well
▶ 1:27:10uh law fair to go after a current or former president we've seen it over the last nine years uh in in many different instances but the president is the one who gets to define the limit and scope of the duties of the Personnel within his office that is very clear from article two of the cons will the general lady yield for a question on that yes um but I assume you've read the the chief Justice's opinion in Trump versus United States uh
▶ 1:27:40and if so um are you saying that that that this decision was wrongly decided in distinguishing between core functions of the president where his discretion is indeed absolute as you suggest the official acts that are not within his core functions where chief justice Robert says that's subject to a balancing test and then private and unofficial acts where he doesn't get to Define it all that's up to the court that's not that we're not talking about immunity we're talking about something entirely different about who gets
▶ 1:28:10to Define who defines and I think that's precisely what they did with respect to immunity it's a g lady's time okay when you read the decision they did not strip the president of the ability to define or limit the scope duties of the Personnel within they said if it's private and unofficial the court will know it and that's exactly what this is about if you rob a bank you can't say that's part of my duties because I'm trying to reform the cfpb and that's not what he's saying when you're defining or limiting the scope of the duties of an official within the executive branch of
▶ 1:28:40of the within the uh off official of the executive off Office of the President all we're trying to do is prevent the the violation of the separation of powers as I've indicated and I you're you're trying to strip the court of substantive jurisdiction over the president's powers and you can't do that it's emphatically The Province and the duty of the judicial Department to say what the law is including over the president that is not what this provision says well if it does what does it say then what does it mean to say no court May Define or limit the scope of the duties
▶ 1:29:11of an official of the executive office of the presid the executive office the president has the ability to define the scope of the individuals that work with in the scope and the duties of the individuals that work in his office so that could include criminal AC not for a state court or a federal court to Define so that could include criminal actions that is absolutely an absurdity to even then you're not reading chief justice Robert's opinion that's what it's all about how do we constrain executive power and you're you're saying you can't constrain executive power because the executive
▶ 1:29:41power is vested in the president but that's a tautology but that that's just a tautology the legislative power is vested in Congress but that doesn't mean we can do whatever we want we can't violate people's rights the gentle L's time is expired who else recognition seeing none the question is on the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute oh I'm sorry the from by the gentleman from Maryland all those in favor say I
▶ 1:30:11I all those oppose no in the opinion of the chair the NOS have it the NOS have it the amendment is not have a recorded vote on it recorded vote being ordered the clerk will call the RO Mr Jordan Mr Isa no Mr Isa votes no Mr Bigs Mr mlto Mr mlto votes no Mr Tiffany Mr Massie Mr Massie votes no Mr Roy Mr Roy votes no Mr Fitzgerald Mr
▶ 1:30:42Klein Mr Gooden Mr van Drew Mr vandrew votes no Mr Nells Mr Nells votes no Mr Moore Mr Moore votes no Mr Kylie Miss Hagman Miss Hagman votes no Miss Lee Miss Lee votes no Mr Hunt Mr Fry Mr grothman Mr not Mr not votes no Mr Harris
▶ 1:31:13Mr Harris votes no Mr and Mr and votes no Mr Schmid Mr Schmid FS no Mr Gil Mr bomgardner Mr Rasin Mr Rasin votes I Mr Nadler Mr Nadler votes I miss lran miss LR votes I Cohen Mr Johnson I Mr Johnson votes I Mr swell Mr Lou miss
▶ 1:31:44jaapa Mr kareah miss scandin Mr nus Miss mcbath Miss Ross Miss Ross votes I miss ballant I miss ballant votes I Mr Garcia Mr Garcia votes I miss camer Dove Miss camer Dove votes I Mr mosz Mr mosz votes I Mr Goldman Mr Goldman votes I miss
▶ 1:32:19Crockett Mr Fry you're not recorded Mr Fry votes no ja Mr J votes
▶ 1:32:50I the clerk will report thank you for Mr chairman there are 11 eyes and 14 NOS the amendment is not agreed to for what purpos does gentleman from New York seek recognition chairman have an amendment at the desk the clerk a report gentleman reserves a point of order liit to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR
▶ 1:33:201789 without objection the amendment shall be is read and the gentleman from New York is recognized to explain his Amendment thank you Mr chairman Mr chairman I am offering a very simple Amendment one that should not be controversial it would exempt from this bill a crime for which we arrest imprison and even Deport people every single day fraud the American people deserve to understand what this bill from the majority is really intended to do it is a blatant Shameless attempt to predict to protect a convicted felon Donald Trump
▶ 1:33:51who was indicted in over 90 criminal charges across multiple courts last year in my home state of New York the nation watched As Trump became the first former president to be convicted of felony crimes in the end he was convicted on a whopping 34 felony counts related to hush money scheme to cover up an affair with an adult fil film star and illegally influence the 2016 election I believe we have a video from the day he convicted we've got a verdict Ari melber uh we are
▶ 1:34:21looking at count one guilty uh count two guilty count three guilty count four guilty count five guilty those are the first five counts coming out of this jury finding Donald J Trump guilty on the first five felony counts uh reading the rest as we are getting it from our court reporters starting with count six count six guilty uh count seven guilty count eight guilty and you'll see on the screen we're tracking ahead count N9 guilty count 10 guilty count 11 guilty count 12 guilty
▶ 1:34:51count 13 guilty count 14 guilty count 16 guilty count 17 guilty count 18 guilty count 19 guilty count 20 guilty count 21 guilty count 22 guilty count 23 guilty count 24 guilty count 25 guilty count 26 guilty uh count 27 we're seeing that on screen guilty uh count 28 guilty uh those are the first 28 felony counts here as read by the jury count 29 guilty count 30 guilty count 31 guilty count 32 guilty count 33 and 34
▶ 1:35:22guilty uh that is Donald J Trump defendant in New York versus Donald Trump found guilty on all 34 felony counts that is the verdict here in this case I believe uh as you can see in the interest of time we sped up the tape to get through all 34 guilty verdicts quickly however those 34 felony convictions aren't the only legal challenges Trump faces in New York last year New York attorney general Tish James caught Donald Trump red-handed in one of the largest fraud schemes in State history
▶ 1:35:52he was found liable for civil fraud in order to pay over $350 million an amount that with interest now exceeds $500 million what was the nature of this fraud years of Deceit scheming to inflate his wealth on financial statements misleading Banks and insurers and manipulating accounts to maintain the illusion of being wealthier than he was this was not merely a clerical error or misunderstanding it was a calculated deliberate fraud currently Trump is appealing that case in State Court
▶ 1:36:23however I imagine he would love for this bill to become law so he could remove that case from the New York courts transfer it to federal court and according to provisions of this bill seek to completely evade accountability this is outrageous Mr chairman my Republican colleagues say they oppose a two-tier justice system but what do they call this situation why should a billionaire who holds the highest office in the land be allowed to evade accountability for crimes that would likely lead to imprisonment for any ordinary person no
▶ 1:36:54one whether it's the president or anyone else should Escape consequences for intentionally and immorally deceiving New Yorkers out of hundreds of millions of dollars Republicans also claim to support states rights however this bill would take away the ability of states to hold accountable Those Who attack and defro their citizens New York has the ability and the right to enforce New York crimes in New York courts this bill should also be unnecessary we have never had this issue come up for any other president in our more than 230e
▶ 1:37:24history only now because we have a convicted felon in the White House do our Republican friends feel they need to change the law to ensure that Donald Trump will never again be held accountable in a court of law pathetic I urge I encourage my colleagues to vote against this underlying bill but I hope they will at least adopt my amendment to ensure that states have the power to hold those accountable Who attack and defraud their citizens I yield back
▶ 1:37:54for what purpos does the gentleman from New Jersey seek recognition I'm going to make this simple and I gentleman's recognize for five minutes thank you um we you know had a very long meeting the last time on this committee um in fact in our subcommittee hearing on oversight we also had a very long meeting so I'm I'm going to do my best not to speak as as much it's hard to do though um let's just forget about the Trump thing and weigh the bill on its
▶ 1:38:25merits and I would say to my friends on the other side be careful what you wish for because this is a theme we have in the subcommittee if it happened to him if it happens to a republican if it happens to a conservative and when I say it I mean weaponizing the Judiciary weaponizing the Department of Justice it could happen to you as well it could happen to any of us now we all know that you know when when it comes to this civil case I'll just
▶ 1:38:55because that was the last case that um my friend from New York spoke about that clearly Leticia James was less fulfilling her role her legal role and more a political role clearly clearly there has been some cooperation between the Department of Justice in many of these cases and I won't go through them all and actually what happened in some of these cities and
▶ 1:39:25counties and clearly um it's so obvious that this really could happen to anyone and that it was these charges were blown up you know supposedly he overrated the value of his properties Etc his wealth all the banks that were involved in all these transactions to this day will say they're more than willing they would love to lend him money again
▶ 1:39:56he paid his money back on time when he was supposed to the full amount without any problems everybody knows I mean we're having the political argument here but everybody know I believe you should know that there is Merit to this legislation it's a Congressman friy Bill everyone knows that we politicized the Judiciary and the Department of Justice and what I'm telling you is you you know Life's a funny business it's a cycle
▶ 1:40:26and if it happened to him and it happened to us as Republicans it could happened to you as Democrats so let's clarify this and make sure that regardless of whomever is the president of the United States or the vice president of the United States that they are clearly able to function and do their job without fear would the gentleman yield I yeah I will yield yes thank you I would simply point out that regardless of the motives
▶ 1:40:56of Tish James regardless of the motives of Alvin brg which I think in both cases were fine regardless juries found Donald Trump guilty in the financial fraud case and in the hush money case and I will say that if any Democrat current former president future nonresident is found guilty by a jury of his or her years they should pay the penalty and
▶ 1:41:27Donald Trump is no different Alvin brag you may say had bad motives Tish James you may say had bad motives I don't agree in either case but a jury separate juries found Donald Trump guilty and under our system of justice that ought to be dispositive i y I'll reclaim my time you know you know I understand your point but the truth is again that this this was a really difficult jury process there jury selection and that the Trump people had asked to have this
▶ 1:41:57hearing in another local to move the jurisdic and and they should have and I'm not saying to a republican area but to a neutral ground there was nothing neutral about this ground and we've gone through this all and we're not going to Hash it out all again but I'm telling you to really think about what I'm saying to be careful it was wrong what happened they you know it went from trying to get him through the legal system to trying even having secretaries of State pull his name off the ballot which was clearly illegal and inappropriate
▶ 1:42:27as well folks on your side just didn't want him to run well the way it works is he was nominated by the party to run run a good election fight hard and see who wins the way to stop a candidate from be serving as president of the United States is not by misusing and weaponizing and politicizing the judicial system so I ask you to think about it I do not support this amendment and I yield back my time the gentleman yields back
▶ 1:42:57the gentle lady from Washington is recognized to strike the last word thank you Mr chairman um I think we have to be very careful when we start to question juries and the steps that lead to the jury system I think all of this is extremely dangerous and I think that right now um would you yield for one second and I let me get through my comments and then I absolutely will I think right now House Republicans are doubling down on a very dangerous proposition because this proposed Bill
▶ 1:43:28codifies presidential immunity in two steps it allows first any president to remove any civil or criminal case from State Court to Federal Court related to quote any act while in office and second it establishes a presumption of immunity for any of the removed cases and so the result is that not just Donald Trump but any future president and I would just turn it back to you and say if you have a Democratic president is this what you want any president
▶ 1:43:58is shielded including Donald Trump is shielded from civil or criminal liability for any violation of state law simply because he's President we are not supposed to have Kings in this country and I want to take one of the arguments that Justice Sodom mayor made um during the Supreme Court discussion of presidential immunity imagine that President Trump and you can substitute any Democratic and Republican name in here but let's imagine that President Trump authorizes
▶ 1:44:28the military to assassinate Joe Biden and that a local prosecutor brings a first deegree murder charge because the ACT happened quote while in office Trump would be able to remove the criminal case to Federal Court then he would be able to assert immunity since the case was removable and there would be no justice if that sounds extreme it's because the bill is Extreme and I think
▶ 1:44:58when you ask us to apply it in a different situation and I am going to try to give you a minute here I think you have to think about is this what you want that's not where it ends the bill actually even goes further than the Supreme Court did because it expands immunity to all Acts including acts that have nothing to do with presidential duties so here's another hypothetical example imagine that President Trump conf confiscates Farmland to build a Trump Hotel and golf course then a local prosecutor
▶ 1:45:29brings charges against Trump for larsy and once again because the ACT occurred quote while in office Trump would be able to remove the state court case to federal court and then when in federal court he'd be able to assert immunity from Criminal liability because the case was removable I do think that one of the Hallmarks of our democracy if my colleagues on the other side agree with the principle of democracy is that the president is not a king the
▶ 1:45:59president is not a king and yet it seems to me that my colleagues on the other side intentioned or not are doing everything in their power to make the president not just this one but any future one a king this bill if enacted would make him a king so I'm going to yield uh to to Mr van Drew um just so you can respond is this what you envision that any President should be a king and those examples if I substituted
▶ 1:46:29Biden for Trump and uh would you be fine with those things happening I you yeah thank you I thank the gentle lady I appreciate her viewpoint yes I would be fine um I mean federal court inherently there is nothing so Mr vandrew just just so you are okay with the president having zero accountability Republican president Democratic president zero accountability um and being able to do anything
▶ 1:47:00they want including murder including that's appropriating for I'm just our job is to take it to the hypothetical of the things that could happen that's what we do when we pass legislation 30 seconds so no of course I wouldn't be all right nobody's saying that and that would also murder is a federal crime um can be a federal crime but he would have immunity according to this bill but but but um we've never had this issue before and the problem is that we now have prosecutors and Attorneys General
▶ 1:47:30in various locations and again be careful what you wish for hypothetically I'm going to be very open-minded here it could happen where you had uh just the reverse situation a very very very Republican state goes and sues a president or a vice president that's a democrat in fact it well may have uh and the other issue that I wanted to deal with real quickly is is cases are moved all the time what they believe Mr VRE I'm going to reclaim my time because that is part of the process they either get moved
▶ 1:48:00or they don't get moved the determination is made you either believe in the justice system or you don't and what you uh what my colleagues have been doing is undermining the justice system over and over again and not holding uh the president accountable giving him a free reign or her potentially in the future in this country a free reign to do anything they want I don't think serves our justice system I yield back Mr chairman the g l yields back who else recognition
▶ 1:48:31gentl the gentleman from California is recognized to strike the word thank you Mr chairman this is the simple Awful Truth About the Biden Administration for the first time in American history a presidential Administration targeted its Chief rival for criminal prosecution concocted the most flimsy criminal charges turned the federal law enforcement Machinery against them and colluded with Democratic state law enforcement officials to do the same
▶ 1:49:02this is the historical record this has happened and when we speak of threats to democracy what greater threat can there be than one party trying to jail its leading opponent for the first time in our history a presidential Administration executed an armed raid on a former and future president's home for the first time in our history the leading candidate for president was gagged by a rogue judge in the middle of a campaign for the first time in our history the leading candidate for
▶ 1:49:32president was pulled off the campaign Trail in the middle of that campaign and compelled to sit through a grotesque mockery of a trial my friend from New York who who seems to Revel in the Sham conviction that experts across the political Spectrum from Alan dtz to Jonathan Turley have all denounced as a glaring miscarriage of Justice if if that analysis is confirmed by the higher courts my friend from New York's going to spend the rest of his life having his words thrown back
▶ 1:50:02at him the American people already gentle no the American people already sat as the largest jury in history in 2024 and they saw right through the democrat's corrupt abuse of our justice system according to at least one poll Americans reported they viewed the greatest threat to democracy is coming from the Democrats and um after all what what greater threat can exist to a democracy than a political
▶ 1:50:33party that sets aside the results of primary elections it doesn't like gags its opponents uses the FBI to strike down speech it doesn't like and tries to jail its opponent on specious charges the the Democrats obviously lack any facility for self-reflection or self-awareness as as president Trump tried to them last night how did that work out for you you know Bobby Kennedy asked has there ever been an instance in all of recorded history when the people trying to
▶ 1:51:03censor dissent turned out to be the good guys the same question can be asked of those who try to jail their political opponents so my my Democratic colleagues might want to take a step back and consider how history will judge them in the years ahead when passions have cooled and the fact act remain my my father was a veteran of World War II and when I was a child the memories of that terrible Epoch were still fresh and he used to lecture us at the dinner table from
▶ 1:51:33time to time about midnight knocks on the door of political opponents persecution of disfavored racial or political groups suppression of speech the perversion of the justice system and the terrifying place where all of that leads but every one of my father's lectures ended with these words don't worry that can't happen here because of our constitution well we've just lived through an era when we that did start to happen our constitution held this time the people reasserted themselves it's
▶ 1:52:03now our responsibility to strengthen our laws to prevent us from ever starting down this dark road again the the Absurd hypotheticals we hear from the Democrats give us some insight into their delusions involving Donald Trump I'd simply remind them that Donald Trump never crossed the lines of Civility and democracy that the Democrats trampled over these last four years in the aftermath this woke fever dream that we're emerging from it's our responsibility to enact laws that make it impossible
▶ 1:52:34for our colleagues to ever again use the most fearsome powers of government to intimidate and obstruct and censor their political opponents I yield back I move to strike gentlemen you back to jump from New York is recognized thank you um my uh my colleague um who just spoke left one other first out of his list of Firsts which is that for the first time in history
▶ 1:53:04a president tried to overthrow a lawful election try to incite a mob to invade the capital to stop the proper counting of electoral bootes that a president presid for the first time in history true schemed and pressured officials all around the country to make up and fraudulently say
▶ 1:53:35that he won the election that's also the first time in history and while I know that my colleagues have so much difficulty Imagining the possibility that a depart Department of Justice could actually be non-political because this Department of Justice and Donald Trump's first Department of Justice were so nakedly
▶ 1:54:05and brazenly political but the point of having a special councel is to remove the investigation from the supervision of the appointed attorney general now you may not like the special counsel regulations you didn't like the independent Council statute which Republicans ultimately opposed but the reality is that the Biden
▶ 1:54:35justice department also appointed a republican special counsel to investigate Joe Biden for his possession and retention of classified documents now I've heard many of my Republican colleagues create this false equivalency between the two because of course when President Biden found the documents he immediately called the FBI to turn them over and sat for a 5-h hour interview When Donald Trump was informed
▶ 1:55:05that he had 15 boxes or more of classified documents he hid them he lied about whether he had them he concealed them he then lied again to the FBI about whether he had them pursuant to a subpoena and UL ultimately the FBI learned that he was obstructing their investigation and he refused to turn over the classified documents that is not the same as Joe Biden but a special councel is independent from the attorney
▶ 1:55:36general and other than your accusation constant accusation that the special counsel was appointed by the Biden Department of Justice after immediately after Donald Trump announced that he was running for president you have actually no evidence no support for the notion that this was political other than the fact that Donald Trump was a candidate for president which of course he became so that he could
▶ 1:56:06use that defense and if you look at the January 6 indictment and prosecution as well as the others around the country including guilty pleas by attorneys for Donald Trump who were trying to help him overturn the election and if you look at the maralago classified documents case and that search warrant and that indictment it is
▶ 1:56:36powerful and overwhelming independent evidence provided not by Merrick Garland not by the Biden doj not by the special counsel by Witnesses by emails by texts by actual evidence so if you're going to come and continue to make the baseless allegation that the Biden Department of Justice was politicized then why don't you have some actual evidence to support those allegations you guys had
▶ 1:57:06no problem interfering in the hunter Biden case you didn't like the plea agreement that he got so members of Congress the political legislative branch wrote an amicus brief to a judge to object to to a plea agreement this was the pre Biden's Department of Justice that was Prosecuting his son it's absurd just stop saying it the it does
▶ 1:57:37not add up that simply because you say it means it's true give me some evidence other than the fact that Donald Trump was a candidate for president which he created himself to provide that defense and I apologize to Mr Nadler I I ran overtime but I yield back gentleman yields back I would just point out the court found that the case against Hunter Biden had problems uh in the agreement that they were trying to enter into the chair yes so that
▶ 1:58:07he wouldn't be prosecuted by Trump recognize the gentleman from Arizona thank you Mr chairman what what a convenient thing is selective memory it's a convenient thing we just heard that the first time this happened the first time this happened all Donald Trump but actually the very first time in history at least in the last 50 years that a presidential candidate attempted to thwart counting of electoral votes was in 2000 when Democrats in Congress attempted to decertify President Bush's victory over
▶ 1:58:38Gore then in 2016 Democrats again attempted to desertify that was Trump's victory over Hillary Clinton and it wasn't the first time that a presidential candidate claimed that electoral defeat was rigged Hillary Clinton still thinks she won the 2016 election she still thinks there was some kind of Russian interference that has been totally debunked Hillary
▶ 1:59:08Clinton Hillary Clinton is your is is your she she's she's the poster child for claiming that Donald Trump's uh presidency was was yeah that's so it is really a convenient thing selective memory you get to pick and choose what you want which allows for forgiveness for your Distortion of facts which allows you to Ramble On and create the narrative that you want
▶ 1:59:38to create and my colleagues have the most remarkable thing they have a collective selective memory and they choose to ignore the realities I support the underlying Bill and oppose the amendment I'm going to yield back to the chairman CH back the gentleman from Georgia is recogniz
▶ 2:00:09thank you Mr chairman I uh yield to the gentleman from New York I thank the gentleman I want to point out a few things in 2000 in after the 2000 election after the 2016 election some democratic members of objected uh to certifying the results no Democratic senator joined them so it was but unlike 2021
▶ 2:00:39no Democrat provoked a mob to attack Congress to cause the deaths of police officers in order to stop the counting of the electoral votes it is very different to object in the house which is your right as a member than to provoke an armed Riot number one number two we heard we have heard from our Republican colleagues today about the armed
▶ 2:01:10raid on the president on President Trump's maral Lago estate that wasn't an armed raid that was the FBI executing a Court warrant and why was he ex was were they was it necessary to get a warrant because Donald Trump refused to surrender classified so they went to court and they got a search
▶ 2:01:40warrant and the FBI executed the search warrant characterizing it as an armed raid doesn't change the facts we're told that the justice department under Biden weaponized was weaponized against Trump against Republicans generally perhaps but let's take a look at that yes a special prosecutor was uh appointed to
▶ 2:02:11investigate the riot investigate Mr Trump's role in the riot of that attempted to uh stop these County electoral votes and to investigate the uh retention the unauthorized retention of classified documents a special prosecutor was also appointed to investigate President Biden's retention of of of um um secret documents the difference being that
▶ 2:02:41President Biden immediately turned them over and the special prosecutor therefore said no problem the special prosecutor the justice department I should say was so uh weaponized against Republicans and for Democrats that it prosecuted the son of President Biden it was so weaponized that it prosecuted a very prominent Democratic US senator Robert
▶ 2:03:12Mendez Mr chairman this is not a weaponized justice department this is a justice department doing its job and bending over backwards to do its job properly and would the gentleman yield I will are you referring to the current justice department no I am referring to the justice department under President Biden gotcha thank you the current justice department I'm glad the gentleman raised the point every is systematically looking identifying all the FBI agents
▶ 2:03:42who worked on the January prosecutions many of them by assignment not by choice and firing them this is talk about weaponizing a department and the new head of the FBI has an enemies list which he so and as Mr uh uh Goldman said there is no evidence whatsoever that the justice
▶ 2:04:13department under President Biden did anything wrong that Alvin brag did anything wrong that Tish James did anything wrong other than the simple assertion by Republicans that they did with no evidence to back it up whatsoever I yeld back gentleman Yi's Backle oh excuse me gentleman from Georgia's time that's right gentleman Georgia uh yield back yields back the chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida
▶ 2:04:43uh thank you Mr chairman so I I'll play like a little social experiment with my colleagues in the room there's only like five of them here but that's okay we're we're we're light on members too so I I I just want to I want to play this game because I just want to make sure I understand the point and that we're going to apply it evenly so how many of you believe and raise your hand I mean let's just let's just get you on the record how many of you believe Mike Pence should not be prosecuted for not listening
▶ 2:05:13to Donald Trump on January 6 should not be prosecuted he shouldn't be prosecuted because he didn't listen to the president on January 6th right anyone want to raise your hand no so maybe maybe Mike Pence should be prosecuted that's potential okay we got one we got one member willing to say Mike Pence should not be prosecuted for listen for not listening to Donald Trump on January 6 let's do Joe Biden how many of you by a show of hands think based on this the law you want to pass Joe Biden should not be prosecuted for anything he did in the Oval
▶ 2:05:43Office remember his dereliction of Duty at the border he should not be prosecuted let's get you on the record that he shouldn't be prosecuted nobody no no Republican wants the W with so fair game Joe Biden could be could be prosecuted so again this is not about policy that you actually believe in it's about settling the scores of what happened to Donald Trump first of all this is not going to get 60 votes in the Senate anyway so this piece of legislation is dead okay and
▶ 2:06:13you don't even want to apply it evenly you don't even want to apply to even Mike Pence poor Mike Pence could be prosecuted um and so look I'm not going to use all of my time uh because this this this is just a total waste of an exercise gentleman y's back uh gentleman y's back the question occurs on the amendment offered by gentleman from New York all those in favor say I
▶ 2:06:43I all those opposed no no and the opinion of the chairs the NOS opinion of the chair I recorded vote the gentleman from New York asked for aorded vote the clerk will call the roll Mr Jordan no Mr Jordan votes no Mr Isa Mr Bigs Mr Bigs votes no Mr Mento Mr Mento votes no Mr Tiffany Mr Massie Mr Roy Mr
▶ 2:07:14Fitzgerald Mr Klein Mr Gooden Mr van Drew no Mr vandrew votes no Mr Nells Mr Moore Mr Kylie Miss Hegman Miss Lee Miss Lee votes no Mr Hunt Mr Fry no Mr Fry votes no Mr grathan Mr not Mr Harris Mr Harris
▶ 2:07:44votes no Mr and Mr and votes no Mr Schmidt Mr Gil Mr bomb Gardner Mr Rasin I Mr Raskin votes I Mr Nadler I Mr nler votes I miss lren Mr Cohen Mr Johnson Mr Johnson votes I Mr swell Mr Lou Miss jaipal Miss
▶ 2:08:14jaal votes I Mr kareah miss scanland Mr nus mcbath Miss Ross Miss Ross votes I miss ballant miss ballant votes I Mr Garcia Miss camer Dove Mr moscowitz Mr MTZ votes I Mr Goldman Miss
▶ 2:08:45Crockett Mr Massie you're not recorded Mr Massie votes nay Mr Isa votes nay Mr Kylie votes nay Miss scanland votes I cck
▶ 2:09:15report Mr chairman there are eight eyes and 11 nose the amendment is not agreed to who seeks recognition G lady from Vermont thank you Mr chair I have an amendment at the desk clerk of report gentleman from California reserves a point of order Amendment to the amendment and objection Amendment will be considered as R the Gent a from Vermont's recognized to explain her Amendment thank you Mr chair my amendment is pretty straightforward
▶ 2:09:46it would exempt crimes related to sexual assault from being removable from State Court to Federal Court as we've talked about all morning this bill before us would essentially Grant a president immunity for any crime even at the state level through allowing him to remove all state cases to Federal Court where they would be categorically dismissed including
▶ 2:10:17sexual assault and abuse no one should ever get a pass for abuse I think it's especially important that we exempt sexual assault from the list of crimes a president can get a cart blanch for obviously sexual abuse is not an essential part of the duties of a president of the United States and frankly
▶ 2:10:47if a president abuses he is seen as the most powerful man in the country and it's critical that he be held accountable by a jury of his peers one in five American women face an attempted sexual abuse or rape over the course of their lifetimes over 80% of American women
▶ 2:11:19and over 40% of American men face some kind of sexual assault or harassment in their life so what message does it send to women and girls and any crime victim if we sit here and tell them hey we're here for you we we're tough on crime we're going to hold people accountable we'll go after your attackers unless of course they are federal officials
▶ 2:11:49then they should get a this is a chilling message to send to young girls and women across this country we know that our colleagues across the aisle spend a lot of time talking about tackling violent crime but it has become clear to me that they only mean violent crime committed by some of individuals
▶ 2:12:21perpetrated against other individuals that they deem more important we should be doing everything in our power to protect these potential victims and not create carve outs for their powerful and well-connected abusers every single member in this room right now can show solidarity with victims of sexual ass assault by supporting this very straightforward and simple
▶ 2:12:52Amendment and telling women and girls across this country and again young boys and all the men who have also been sexually abused and harassed that we see you that we have your back and we will do what we can to protect you no matter how powerful your abuser is we can do this right now this is straightforward it is not complicated you know and I often think about what is my what is my role in this committee
▶ 2:13:22because I am not an attorney but it was important that we have voices in this room that are representing regular people back home that want to make sense of what we're doing or not doing and they don't understand why something so straightforward like this we can't even get agreement on no man should be above the law and when we're talking about sexual abuse and harassment something that touches so many women in this country
▶ 2:13:53so many families so many communities that are Shattered by this it is unconscionable unconscionable that we would imagine for a moment that it is right to essentially give a free pass to any elected official and of course a president or a vice president we have a responsibility in this room to give voice to those Americans who can't be in this room who don't get to sit in these seats
▶ 2:14:23who want to understand that we actually have their best interests in mind so I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment it makes sense it is the right thing to do and I see no reason why anyone would stand in opposition to this amendment I yield back uh General lady General lady yields back gentleman from Arizona is recognized move to strike the last word gentlemen is recogniz thank you so I think that the previous speaker kind of gave the whole show
▶ 2:14:53away because uh her reference is always to the masculine um and never to a woman potential president or vice president is never never referenced to um uh a woman being a a perpetrator of a of a sexual offense and I find myself also thinking as I listen to her I couldn't help but think of Bill Clinton and the allegations made against Bill Clinton 100% And then and then regardless I
▶ 2:15:23I'm also kind of baffled by all of the proposed amendments that we've seen because because the way I read the bill and maybe I'm just reading it all wrong is is is I I wonder in the federal court is there do you have to get an information have an indictment have some kind of long form charging uh uh uh instrument instead
▶ 2:15:53do you then have a preliminary hearing in some cases if you're not having an indictment in other words do you present to a to a judge do you not have a prosecutor who's going to present to a judge do you not then have the same burden of proof and the same standards of proof in the federal courts I mean it's the Democrats who've been telling us how wonderful the the federal courts are for for ages
▶ 2:16:24and I find myself just kind of baffled by the whole thing like uh like you just don't you don't trust the federal courts that you've been lotting all this time I'm kind of baffled by that kind of confused by that but in reality if you if you read the the bill which I just read it again because I thought maybe I'm just absolutely baffled by this thing you still you still have the same burdens
▶ 2:16:55of proof same due process issues that you're going to have at the state so it seems to me that really what you want to do is is uh undermine the very purpose of the bill um and continue to specious without substance state um which would then actually does
▶ 2:17:25what we exactly saw against President Trump and that's Forum shopping at the state level that's what you saw that's what happened and so I you know with respect I I'm trying to understand the gentle Amendment but as I review this it looks to me and seems to me that this amendment is part and parcel of all the other amendments that are really actually trying trying to create some kind of uh Pol political statement
▶ 2:17:55as opposed to actually solving issues and that's that's kind of like what I saw on the floor of the house last night I love to I love the little popsicle sticks with the little construction paper signs those are pretty those are pretty special um trying to spend less money and yeah save on money I I appreciate your you didn't want want to be be extravagant and then I did I was grateful for the people I grateful for the for the the people who had their their t-shirt on with with their protest
▶ 2:18:25on it they took off their their outside coat and but Mo what was I most appreciated about that when they turned they were actually facing me because I was sitting there but I was about six seven RS behind them when they left the floor I was grateful because I was able to move up and get a better seat and I I I really appreciate that's that maybe the maybe the only thing I think that we we're seeing moving together uh working together on that that's a crying shame but but I was grateful to do that um uh the the more serious and egregious one of course
▶ 2:18:55was waving one's cane in kind of a wild manner at the president but but the reality is when I'm looking at the the results of that of polling of people who actually watched the speech last night it kind of gets at this whole thing that we've got here and that is this absolute disconnect and failure to understand why the American people rejected you and your policies in such Rich abundance at
▶ 2:19:25the last election and that and that that I think I'm going to draw a response here but that's but that's really what we saw on display last night sofh moric childish not even moric more more juvenile than that attempts to disrupt The Joint speech now you'll back I'm waiting for the gentleman yields back the gentleman from Maryland's recognized thank you kindly Mr chairman uh let me start with the digression to
▶ 2:19:56address uh my friend from Arizona first of all I'm delighted that we were able to show you what a non-violent protest looks like and I appreciate the fact that you praise people for bringing signs and popsicle sticks rather than steel pipes and Confederate battle flags and Trump Flags to beat people up um and so that is indeed in the spirit of uh the First Amendment um and uh I I'm taken with your suggestion that you that uh this was uh a demonstration of why the people rejected Us
▶ 2:20:26in such overwhelming numbers and I keep hearing discussion of a mandate that's quite a mandate that's less than 50% of the vote and is the lowest popular vote Victory uh in many decades but in any event you know congratulations to Mr Trump for winning by a bit over two million votes Joe Biden beat him by more than 7 million votes and not only did you not accept the reality of that mandate you didn't even accept C the reality of his election so that's the the difference between the two parties here we're willing to
▶ 2:20:56stand by the Constitutional process even when it doesn't go our way which is what makes us constitutional Patriots I believe that we don't say that we believe in the Constitution only when it goes in our own Direction now I want to rise in very strong uh support of the general lady from Vermont's Amendment and I want to salute her for introducing this amendment which I do think every on the committee should support um look here's where the law is today
▶ 2:21:26the president the vice president can remove a state criminal prosecution from State Court to federal court if there is a valid constitutional Federal defense if there's a federal defense then you get out of state court and you go to Federal Court that's not enough for some of our friends because they want it to be a categorical removal so we're going to just nullify federalism we're going to nullify the jurisdiction of the state courts and say you can get out automatically when well you can get out if the ACT took
▶ 2:21:57place while you were in office not that it was an official act not that it was in the core functions of your office uh it can be a private act it can be a personal act but you just have to have been in office then you can remove to federal court and then you can get the entire thing dismissed unless you can prove that it would not interfere with or impede or impair in any way your performance of your office like tell me that that is not conferring immunity from Criminal prosecution
▶ 2:22:27so the general lady from Vermont comes forward and says look can we all agree that at least when it comes to rape and sexual assault that's got nothing to do with your the execution of your official duties that's not what presidents and vice presidents are supposed to do I mean this reminds me of uh sub I I once took a class on European history and we learned about the D seor which was the right of feudal Lords and monarchs to have sex with any woman that they wanted
▶ 2:22:57they could simply decide that you know that woman's for me on this night even on their wedding night the ruling was that you could exercise the juu Senor well this as a president vice president can basically engage in sexual assault as we know some presidents have engaged in adjudicated civil sexual abuse and been found guilty of it they can do that um as a president as a former president and then they can remove a state criminal prosecution to federal
▶ 2:23:27court and they can get out of federal court by saying this is going to trouble them in their very busy lives I mean come on this is a statement of second class citizenship for women and the gentle lady says all right you guys want to be able to you know say financial fraud uh is something that you should be able to get dismissed as a president or a former president is a vice president or former vice president but she says at least for raping and sexually assaulting women or in answer to the good gentleman
▶ 2:23:57yes a man could be raped or sexually assaulted too anybody I understand the gentle L's amendment applies in either direction so we don't need to be detained with that particular distraction but the point is that if a woman is going to be raped or sexually assaulted the state should have the power to prosecute regardless of who the defendant is yes even the president of the United States because just cuz you're big and powerful and Rich doesn't mean you can go and grab them wherever you want I yield back
▶ 2:24:27gentleman yields back gentleman from New Jerseys recognized thank you Mr chairman I classify this and file this under politics and let me just say the things that sometimes people don't want to say first of all nobody wants a president or a vice president to engage in sexual assault let's all agree upon that we realize that we think it's wrong whether it's a Democrat whether it's a Republican God help us hopefully it doesn't happen we all agree but the question here is again
▶ 2:24:58let's talk about what's really happened in some locations in some locals we have state prosecutors we have we have political prosecutors political attorney generals political Das a political legal system that can be and has be has been misused and quite frankly locally when I say locally I mean State and even City or municipality
▶ 2:25:28it can be misused more easily than it can be at the federal level and it was misused last time and I don't have time right now but my good friend on the other side Mr Goldman I'd be willing to show him for hours how you know the system the Department of Justice and the Judiciary at various locals was misused for politics it was weaponized and it was politicized with the gentleman y not yet I will and the
▶ 2:25:58point here is that so we're taking an issue and and this is again this is stuff maybe nobody wants to say it's a hard thing to vote against an amendment like that because nobody wants to be seen and we aren't we are not anti-woman or prosexual assault I mean come on nobody's for that nobody wants that to but that this could be misused particularly we see the kinds of prosecutors and Das
▶ 2:26:28that we had at that local level and we see yes president Trump was an example and again I'm going to use the same message give it to you what I gave to you before what goes around comes around that's an old New Jersey saying I probably have in some other places too goes around goes around comes around man be careful what you wish for is another one cuz it could happen in Reverse cuz there are some places and I would hope as a republican that it never would happen in a republican jurisdiction but where you have a strong Republican system and a strong
▶ 2:26:59Republican attorney general locally and I would hope that would never happen I don't believe it would but the point was why would we open ourselves up to that and I you know I'm not an attorney but I've been around him for a lot of years in my state level as a state senator and over the years in politics is there something wrong with the federal court system we're acting like the federal court system is useless worthless that that they can't deal with the issue I find otherwise all that we want
▶ 2:27:29is an objective decent honest way of dealing with these issues that are as non-political as can be and the bottom line I'll wrap up with this and I will yield is that in these days quite frankly some of these cities and some of these towns are more political than they've ever been in American history ever ever and we're misusing the system and this is a way it's a good bill to try to clean it up I I
▶ 2:27:59support women nobody wants a woman to be assaulted for God's sake or a man for that matter it could happen either way especially with the days of now transgender uh issues you could have a a somebody that was a man that's now a very very strong woman I guess okay will the gentleman yield for I will yield yes thank you kindly because I know of your feminist credentials and I know you oppose sexual abuse even when the president is involved the New York case was one in which a civil jury unanimously found
▶ 2:28:29that uh at that point the former president had engaged in sexual abuse of a woman in uh a department store afterwards he denied it and he said that uh it was a lie it was all made up she sued him for defamation and she won again an $85 million verdict against him so what part of that judicial process are you questioning you're yielding back yeah yeah yeah so I will reclaim my time the I'm not I
▶ 2:28:59won't even go into that particular process the part that bothers me in general philosophically we're not just dealing with one case and one president here what we're doing is larger and bigger and more important than that how are we dealing with the issue in its entirety and how it can affect anybody in any situation so that's the issue here Bill applies to civil and criminal and and and let and let me say this there's no question I'm sorry I mean I'm just going to say it and I know you don't agree with me respectfully I respect
▶ 2:29:30you but I mean there's no question when you look at the prosecutors and the attorne General in some of these locations I mean they ran on saying they ran for office to the public said vote for me I am going to find a way to prosecute joh Donald Trump and it could easily happened the reverse way nobody should run for office and say I you know vote for me I'm going to prosecute a Democrat president it's wrong I yield back gentleman y's back the gentle lady from North
▶ 2:30:00Carolina is recognized um thank you Mr chairman um so everybody's talking here about who the president is who the vice president is politics I want to talk about this amendment and my support for it because of who the victim if you're a victim of sexual assault or rape it is a pretty traumatic situation to even press forward with
▶ 2:30:30that case to even get the evidence um I've done bipartisan work getting more sexual assault nurse examiners so that we can have somebody who has the the the ability to communicate with a victim of rape or sexual assault at the worst possible time and collect that evidence if you're telling that victim now you can't have your case heard in your
▶ 2:31:00community you're going to have to go to the federal district court well in some places in this country that Federal District Courthouse is hundreds of miles away it's not it's not in an area where where that person feels comfortable it can be an intimidation factor for that victim it is hard enough and imagine if the perpetrator is the president or
▶ 2:31:30the vice president that in itself is a chilling situation so we are now putting yet block another block to victims of sexual assault and I don't care what gender the perpetrator is I don't care what political party the perpetrator is we need to think about the effects of what we do in this committee on the victim and
▶ 2:32:01it is hard enough I have dealt with victims of sexual assault it is hard enough for them to come forward and now you're asking them to go somewhere outside of their community in a situation where the US attorney was appoint OED by the president of the United States not looking to be helpful here that is simply unacceptable this is a common
▶ 2:32:31sense Amendment yes I will if you just yield for a question because I think if anything your trenchant remarks are way too charitable towards what this bill would do because you forget the dismissal provision yes the removal provision is a nightmare because the victim would have to travel hundreds of miles to go and uh to testify in court in the Hostile terrain of a a federal court where the US attorney may have been appointed by the president uh himself uh but the dismissal provision
▶ 2:33:02means that it's extremely unlikely that the case would ever even go to court because it says if that it would have to be proven that this would not interfere or impede with the president or the vice president's work in any way and you're one of the best lawyers I know don't can you imagine any circumstance in which a competent lawyer would not be able to show that this would interfere with the work of the president or vice president because it's not just they're removing it they're adding a new weapon in the
▶ 2:33:32Arsenal of the president because all they have to do is say this is going to interfere with my work and now you've got to show it won't absolutely and you know clearly this body has not thought it would interfere with an impeachment if something had to do with sexual assault and so why in God's name would we create a situation where it basically the victim is left with no recourse it is
▶ 2:34:02wrong and it is irresponsible and it disrespects victims of sexual assault and rape and I yield back G lady yields back G lady from Pennsylvania is recognized thank you Mr chairman and I I do uh support this amendment that would prevent removal of cases involving sexual assault battery or misconduct but I wanted to point out something that we discussed in the hearing yesterday about this bill which is um section 1456 D
▶ 2:34:32I think this amendment and the discussion about whether or not sexual assault Etc within the scope of duties of the presid president um points out one of the underlying fatal flaws of this bill so that section 1456 D provides that no court Court can Define or limit the scope of the duties of the president so that means um if a president were to argue that sexual assault is within the scope of Duties no court could say no it's not
▶ 2:35:03um similarly we saw with respect to the civil suit in in New York that's been discussed the president tried to argue that his defaming the victim in that case was somehow part of his official duties that would prevent um a court from making that determination so I think our experts here uh yesterday recognized the fact that this raises serious separation of powers concerns um if a court cannot determine
▶ 2:35:33what the duties of the president are can a president ever be held accountable for anything so I I do support this amendment but I think what it does do is point out a really important and as I said fatal flaw in the legislation that's being moved today so I'd yield back gentle yields back the question occurs on the amendment from the gentle lady from Vermont all those in favor say I I those oppose no no I ask for recorded vote Mr chair any of the chairs and
▶ 2:36:03those have it the gentle lady ask for recorded vote the clerk call the role Mr Jordan no Mr Jordan votes no Mr Isa Mr Bigs Mr mlto Mr mlto votes no Mr Tiffany Mr Massie Mr Massie votes no Mr Roy Mr Fitzgerald Mr Klein Mr Gooden Mr van Drew Mr van Drew votes no
▶ 2:36:33Nells Mr Moore Mr Kylie Miss Hegman Miss Lee Mr Hunt Mr Fry Mr grathan Mr grman votes no Mr not Mr Harris Mr Harris votes no Mr and Mr and votes no Mr Schmidt Mr Gil Mr bomgardner
▶ 2:37:04Mr Rasin Mr Raskin votes I Mr nodler I Mr nler votes I miss lren Mr Cohen Mr Cohen votes I Mr swell Mr Lou miss jaul Mr jaul votes I Mr Korea Mr karea votes I miss scandin miss scandin votes I Mr
▶ 2:37:35nus Miss mcbath Miss Ross Miss Ross votes I miss ballant miss ballant votes I Mr Garcia miss cam lager Dove Mr mosquit Mr MOS votes I Mr Goldman Mr Goldman votes I miss Crockett Mr I say you're not recorded Mr Isa votes
▶ 2:40:18e e
▶ 2:40:54Mr Klein no Mr Klein votes
▶ 2:44:48e e
▶ 2:45:32not Mr not votes no clerk will report Mr chairman there are 10 eyes and 10 nose uh the amendment is not agreed to um I think we're ready for without objection the amendment question on adoption of the amendment the nature subtitute this will be followed immediately by vote on reporting the bill all those in favor say I
▶ 2:46:02I those oppos no pend the chair the eyes haveit the amendment the nature of substitute is adopted the question is on favorably reporting the bill as amended all those in favor say I I those oppose no no theend the chair the eyes have it and the bill is order to be reported favorably to the house members have two days to submit can we have a recorded vote Mr gentleman from Maryland asked the ranking member asked for a recorded vote the clerk will call the role Mr Jordan yes Mr Jordan votes yes Mr Isa Mr Bigs
▶ 2:46:33Mr Mento Mr Tiffany Mr Massie Mr Massie votes yes Mr Roy Mr Fitzgerald Mr Klein Mr Klein votes I Mr vandrew Mr vandrew votes yes Mr Nells Mr Moore Mr Kylie Miss Hagman Miss
▶ 2:47:04Lee Mr Hunt Mr Fry Mr grathan Mr not Mr not votes yes Mr Harris Mr Harris votes yes Mr on yes Mr andz yes Mr Schmidt Mr Gil Mr bomgardner Mr Rasin no Mr Rasin votes no Mr Nadler no Mr Nadler votes no
▶ 2:47:35Miss Lofgren Mr Cohen Mr Cohen votes no Mr Johnson Mr sallow Mr Lou Mr jaal Mr jaal votes no Mr Korea Mr Korea votes no Miss scandin Miss scanland votes no Mr nigus Miss mcbath Miss Ross no Miss Ross votes no Miss ballant Miss balant votes
▶ 2:48:05no Mr Garcia Miss camger Dove Mr moscowitz M Mr mosquit votes no Mr Goldman Mr Goldman votes no m c ET Mr mlen talk Mr ment talk votes I Mr Isa Mr Mr Isa votes I Mr Fry you're not recorded Mr Fry
▶ 2:48:36I gentleman from Wisconsin yes Mr grathan votes yes need gentleman from Alabama Mr Moore
▶ 2:49:06votes yes
▶ 2:50:25Mr chair I would like to impose and invoke rule gentleman gentleman uh is stating a rule I'm not sure what he's talking about rule 86 says if there's a vote during lunch that it has to be announced is that a Tennessee at 12:35 is is the ranking member not providing the minority party Lun if the gentleman from Tennessee would like to
▶ 2:50:55come we have uh we have burritos or you we don't have we don't have the budget for it well no we take care of our own so that there's lunch back there for the Democrats and you're welcome to join us too if we I think we may have more appetizing fair over on our side I don't know I I certainly wish you had told me uh you know before my bill was coming up although we could use see those and then come back to
▶ 2:51:25this bill the judges the gentleman from Tennessee perhaps noticed that there were no judges being added added in Tennessee is that is that the nature of his
▶ 2:52:06Amendment they might just have to remove to State Court
▶ 2:52:47than Mr Hunt Mr Hunt votes yes Miss Lee you're not recorded Miss Lee votes yes Miss Crocket on her
▶ 2:53:39G lady from Texas recognize Miss Crockett you're not recorded Miss Crockett is a no click R report Mr chairman there are 14 eyes and 11 nose the eyes hav the Bill's order to be reported favorably to the house members will have two days submit views without objection the bill will be reported as a single Amendment the nature of a substitute incorporating all adopted amendments and staff is authorized to make Technical and conforming change
▶ 2:54:09changes pursuant to notice I now call up HR 1526 the no Rogue rulings act for purpose oh that's wrong we're going to do the other order okay to notice I now call up the judges Act of 2025 for purpose of markup and move the Committee reported favorably to the house the clerk will report the bill hr17 objection the bill will be considered as read and open for Amendment at any
▶ 2:54:40point that has multiple meetings doesn't it chair now recognizes the gentleman from California Mr is for an opening statement thank you Mr uh call up Rogue okay I go back thank you Mr chairman last week we held a hearing on the crisis that undermines
▶ 2:55:11the federal courts that hearing reiterated The Staggering case load and backlog that that delay Justice and deny Americans Swift resolutions of their pressing legal matters following this hearing I introduced HR 1702 the judges Act of 2025 and I reiterate the judges Act of 2025 the reason that's an interesting name is because the judges Act of 2023 was substantially similar along with
▶ 2:55:41representative Kylie Lee and Nellis the text of this bill is nearly identical to Senate Bill 4199 which passed the Senate unanimously in August of last year and passed on a bipartisan basis out of the House of Representatives in December after the election unfortunately during the waning hours of the last Administration the president vetoed Senate Bill 4199 and in my opinion
▶ 2:56:12falsely stated and I quote unnecessary for Effective administration of justice end quote nothing could be more misguided than statement um this is in opposition to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's unequivocal support for the bill saying quote it is bipartison it is prudent it is responsible end quote Mr chairman the bill is not a democratic vote it
▶ 2:56:42is not a Republican vote it is not even a democ or republicrat Bill it is in fact uh necessary for the effective administration of justice the bill takes critical steps to strengthen our federal Judiciary and restore the ability to Serve the People effectively the judges Act of 2025 enacts the recommendations of the judicial conference creating 66 new district court judges in our most overburdened
▶ 2:57:12districts it is a balance of forward-looking spending uh sending judges across six phases between 2025 and 2035 the judges will be spread across three different presidential terms and six different Congressional uh or congresses uh ensuring fairness in impartiality to the greatest extent possible these positions are distributed uh equitably among
▶ 2:57:42red and blue State States avoiding any partisan advantage and falsely uh and focusing solely on judicial judiciary's current pressing needs the bill also addresses challenges unique to specific jurisdictions for in in fact it improves accessibility of the federal court in large judicial districts by authorizing new courthouse locations in Texas and
▶ 2:58:12California and good governance is at the heart of the judges act the bill requ requires the judicial conference to make its judgeship recommendations publicly available including method methodology and Survey results used to determine the needs for new seats also the bill requires the government accountability office to uh evaluate the efficiency of federal appellate and District Court activities as well as federal agencies need
▶ 2:58:43for uh detention space with a discretion cost of less than 5% of the federal Judiciary annual budget this legislation is prudent and essential uh in the investment in the judicial system I like I'd like to take a moment to address my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle many of whom co-sponsored the bill in the last Congress but who now may oppose now that President Trump won
▶ 2:59:13the election Democrats and Republicans agreed in the last Congress that this bill was important and needless and needlessly uh regardless of whether Trump or Harris won the election again I'm going to reiterate we all agreed in voting for the bill that either president Trump or vice president Harris was going to be the next president of the United States and yet all of the Senate and a majority of
▶ 2:59:43the house including 29 Democrats that in fact one or the other was going to be president and in the case of the house knowing that President Trump would be next voted for the bill that is why we supported the bill even without knowing who would be the president when we wrote it and I hope my Democratic friends will put country over party again and help pass this critical legislation I'd urge my colleagues to this the
▶ 3:00:14and we'll be passing out a uh a flyer that shows the details in every case it just happens that the these judgeships are in either all blue States or all red States and I think this is important with 37 blue States meaning two senators who are Democrats and only 28 Republican states in which both senators are Republican with the blue slip and at District Court it means
▶ 3:00:44that in 37 of these judges including the majority for the Trump Administration remaining four years the majority will be Co controlled by Senators who can withhold until they get an acceptable candidate meaning they will not have magga Republicans they will have Republican leaning or moderate leading uh judges who are acceptable to two Senate Democrats in addition to the president of United States and I think this ensures that
▶ 3:01:14the court will remain balanced during that period additionally I would note that the Senate is currently in Republican majority but that is switched back and forth so often that there's no telling in the second two years of the Trump Administration who will be in charge of the Senate so for that reason and more more I ask the members to look at the bill as open-mindedly as we did uh in the previous Congress vote for it accordingly for the best interest
▶ 3:01:45of the American people and with that I yield back gentleman yields back the ranking memb is recognized for an opening statement thank you Mr chairman and thanks to Mr Isa for that um that lucid description of where we are I do think it misses one critical point um in the last Congress we reached a bipartisan by coll deal 66 new federal judgeships spread out over 10 years over two and a half presidential terms starting with the next unknown
▶ 3:02:15president of the United States this is the Rian original position we all can agree to it because it might favor the Democrats it might favor the Republicans we would all agree and last week uh in this hearing room uh I offered to go back to that exact deal uh at any time this is the only way it's worked or it's ever worked or it's going to work now we agree to expansion of the Judiciary in the first year of the next Presidential administration of an
▶ 3:02:45unknown president it's been over 30 years since we added more district court judges to the bench we all agreed that the courts need more judges we used the recommendations from the nonpartisan judicial conference to get the numbers and crucially we agreed that the appointment tranches would begin with the next unknown president we're we're all jumping in together the Senate held up their end of the bargain they passed the bill by unanimous consent last August before the
▶ 3:03:16election but house Republicans who is the majority party controlled the schedule on the floor the sending of bills to the floor refused to move the bill until they knew that their party had won the presidency despite the fact that Mr Nadler Mr Johnson all of us were urging them to move it before and they refused to do it um they didn't just kill the deal that we made their maneuver doomed any hopes for a nonpartisan increase in federal judges so why
▶ 3:03:46the sudden rush now to get more judges on the bench well it's clear that with Congressional Republicans on the sidelines uh with Elon Musk essentially taking over all the policy initiative the judicial branch is the only branch of government providing an appropriate check on the lawlessness and the chaos of Trump's Administration which means the federal court system is the next Target they've got to get judges on the bench because
▶ 3:04:16I think uh we have now certainly over 30 but it may be 35 judges that have issued temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions against the massive trampling of the lawmaking powers of Congress under article one uh there are courts that are standing up against the violation of the Civil Service rights of workers at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau the Department of Treasury the Department of Education the agency for International Development
▶ 3:04:46there are five different courts that have struck down uh Donald Trump's absolutely Lawless executive order purporting to destroy Birthright citizenship which is provided for in the very first sentence of the 14th Amendment adopted in 1868 um and so with the courts standing up for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights with Congress being completely sidelined and bypassed uh by the administration the push is now on to get these judges that our
▶ 3:05:16colleagues would not go along with providing for when it was under uh the veil of neutrality that we had adopted uh in the last session so I'm sorry that we are where we are now uh we will absolutely go back to that deal that is the only amendment we're going to offer here to go back to the original deal that Mr Isa Mr Johnson Mr Nadler had struck before um and I thought that we were all going to stick to we
▶ 3:05:47will do that that again we will pass it today and we will pass it as an amendment to this bill or we'll go ahead and we'll uh introduce that bill again but this is the only way that it that it really works and uh obviously we're not going to be party to another Court packing scheme um you know Mr Isis shows some statistics uh and makes the argument that um the the Democratic senators would be able to exercise a kind of break
▶ 3:06:17on the judges to be nominated by Donald Trump um I think we talked about last time well that they wouldn't said forth real Mega judges it would be more like the the corporate Republican uh variety uh of judges in any event that presupposes that the GOP on the Senate side won't simply get rid of the blue slip process uh as applied to District Court uh nominations that's what it
▶ 3:06:47did did in 2017 with respect to Federal appeals court nominations they just got rid of the blue slip and so I'm afraid that Mr ice is making an offer that he can't follow through on because the Senate Republicans may decide to do away with the whole blue slip process in which case we've just knowingly created judges for Donald Trump to pack with uh more people like Eileen Cannon and we were willing to take that chance before the election our colleagues
▶ 3:07:17were not willing uh to gamble on the results of the election and so now we say let's go back to the original deal I yeld back to you Mr chairman uh jman yield back up just point out uh the gentleman used the term Court packing scheme I would just again underscore what the sponsor legislation said judicial conference is for this this passed in a bipartisan way in the Senate unanimously passed in a bipartisan way in the house uh unfortunately President Biden wasn't willing to sign it if we want to talk about a court packing scheme it's the bill that the former ranking member of the committee
▶ 3:07:48sponsored in the last couple congresses I believe I don't know if the current ranking member was part of that but that was the bill to add four associate Justice to the United States Supreme Court that is Court packing this is a bill that is judicial conference once Mr ice has put together with bipartisan support and it simply I think is just good common sense that we pass it and help the overburden judicial branch of our uh of our government with that I recognized uh gentleman from California offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute Mr chairman I have an amendment at the desk report the amendment Amendment and the objection the amendment the nature
▶ 3:08:18of substitute will be consider as read and shall be considered as base text for the purpose of the amendment the chair recognize the gentleman from California explain the amendment thank you Mr chairman uh it this bill uh is changed only in a very small and Technical way the amendment modifies the title of the bill so when everyone understands it is 2025 it uh it does adopt the senate 12year or the longer term it's sort of three Cong three full congresses um and it takes out a provision no longer mooded because of of another piece of legislation
▶ 3:08:48that passed with with that exception it is the Senate bill as it came to us and that is what we intend to do and I yield back gentleman yields back who seeks recognition gentleman do you want to go ohe gentleman from Tennessee thank you Mr chair um yesterday I was surprised to learn that the richest smartest most magnificent brilliant person in the
▶ 3:09:19world Elon Musk had proposed closing 400 Federal buildings one of which is the federal courthouse in Memphis without a new courthouse all of a sudden we're going to put it up for sale or get rid of leases the Odell Horton Federal Building is a building that has my office in it as well as it has my three predecessors offices was in it Senator hagerty's office is in it the US attorneys
▶ 3:09:50are in it the federal judges are in it and the US Marshals in it how can we be considering having new judges when we're get dispossessing other judges and putting them out on the street that's wrong even if it's the most intelligent richest brilliant man in the world uh the federal district other Federal District Courthouse in Tennessee is in Jackson it's not it's a very small building it won't H the nine judges that we have in the West Tennessee so that won't
▶ 3:10:20work uh there are other Federal courthouses for sale here that will be for sale without having created new buildings and Mr Isa mentioned that Texas and I think maybe California they were have new courthouse is built well you got to have a courthouse you just can't come up here and just say we're going to sell the building uh GSA hasn't given us an answer uh GSA has said that they're going to look into it they've taken the list off the
▶ 3:10:51um off their website um that doesn't help us a lot um it's a lengthy process to get a new courthouse so before we start naming new judges we probably ought to figure out where we can have courts sit and and meet and have that action and maybe we should just take this bill and hold it for a while until the greatest most brilliant smartest most absolutely phenomenal judicial and and real estate in the world Elon Musk can come and tell us what he's going to do with the judges
▶ 3:11:21will the gentleman y please yes I will so um thank you so much for pointing that out I think Tennessee is not the only target for federal court uh closure here uh I assume the answer might be well those federal judges uh rendered homeless by the closing the buildings could work from home but of course that would violate the order that they're not allowed to work at home they've got to get back to work where they would be fired presumably by Elon Musk or they would be given
▶ 3:11:51the offer to work for uh to not work but to get paid for the next eight or nine months under the fork in the road which was another extraordinary offer uh developed by the most um brilliant innovator in the world um that two million people should actually not work but get paid by the federal taxpayers in critical functions um like air traffic control or food and uh drug safety inspector nuclear site uh guard
▶ 3:12:22uh cancer researcher and so on so uh I don't know whether the gentleman would consider withdrawing the bill until we get some clarity as to whether or not there'd be any place to house all of these federal judges but I'm happy to yield back thank you and you're right I mean he had he had those and and and Mr um brilliant who said well we'll make a few mistakes but we'll correct them immediately and he mentioned Eola he didn't mention the mistakes that he' made with the um knowing when Social Security took people who hadn't got their
▶ 3:12:52death certificates filed and gave them a date of birth in the 1870s which obviously neither most of us knew because we read about that and saw what the problem was but Mr Trump and his speech maker didn't see it because they read it off last night like these people were all getting money which is absurd and they also didn't have the the the the bird flu uh and they took people off of that and fired them uh so yeah would the gentleman yield yes sir you know I'd like to speak in support of your point uh
▶ 3:13:23strongly uh this committee authorizes specifically where judges can hold court that is our jurisdiction uh a colleague who came into congress with me is now currently the chairman of the TNI and they authorize the courts the actual production uh including the one that I need expanded in the coming years internally so I think it's fair for the gentleman to say that announcements by anybody in the executive branch are just that their intentions the reality
▶ 3:13:53is uh this committee shall insist on its jurisdiction of the time place and manner of of our courts and working with uh TNI we will make sure that the facilities are there that that that is not an executive branch decision that is discretionary to uh uh do what you may suggest Could Happen which would be to find judge without courtrooms uh where we have judges we will not allow that and I would share with the gentleman the push back if
▶ 3:14:23that were to happen gentleman's time has expired Miss Lee thank you Mr chairman the judges Act is a vital piece of legislation that will address a critical shortage of article three district court judges as our population and our litigation continues to grow as the case loads continue to rise we must equip our Judiciary to be able to meet the needs of the public this includes an appropriate and adequate number of judges
▶ 3:14:54to hear and resolve cases the claims that we are hearing today that this bill is in any way partisan or worse yet the claim that it is in some way tantamount to court P packing are grounded in neither fact nor reality in fact this bill is specifically designed to stagger the creation of new judgeships so that they spam multiple presidential administrations some of the vacancies occur now and others will span
▶ 3:15:24future administrations so that there is no partisan certainty nor any sort of partisan manipulation associated with the creation of these new judicial spots I come from the Middle District of Florida which is the second most populous District in the country and has one of the heaviest case loads anywhere in America whether we measure by using weighted or unweighted case loads I have seen firsthand the diligence the dedication and the hard
▶ 3:15:54work of our judges and their staffs as they attempt to meet the need of the ever increasing burden on our federal courts The Staggering workload and case filings have a very real effect on the judges who were trying to do their job effectively and on the citizens of our communities who are coming to the courts to have their disputes res resolved we heard testimony just last week about the significance of the increase in workload and how it is affecting
▶ 3:16:25both the judges and our communities in Congress it is critical that we respect and support the courts as a co-equal and independent branch of government and a foundational part of doing that as members of Congress is to ensure that we do our job and properly staff and equip the courts I encourage my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation Mr chairman I yield back G lady yields back
▶ 3:16:55Is there further discussion on the ANS Mr Goldman thank you um thank you Mr chairman I I find it interesting um to hear my uh my friend from California talk about how we have jurisdiction over judges and whatever the executive branch says is just their intent ENT and just advisory um I I wish my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would
▶ 3:17:25view congress's power of the purse in the same way because what my colleagues are doing is essentially rolling over and giving all of congress's power of the purse all of its oversight and responsibility to Donald Trump Elon Musk and the administration you all have no idea what Elon Musk is cutting and we know that
▶ 3:17:55because Elon Musk has no idea what he's cutting 10 of the 12 top line items in the so-called transparent wall of receipts were determined to be false Incorrect and yet you want to assert your Juris dition over cour houses and where judges are but you don't want to assert your own
▶ 3:18:25jurisdiction over where money is spent and we are now coming up on a deadline to fund the government and by all accounts The Proposal that we are expected to see is a continuation of the current budget and spending that has been cut by Elon Musk so you
▶ 3:18:55are proposing to to support continuing funding of programs that are allegedly waste Fraud and Abuse and what's more by doing that you are just giving the administration more and more Authority and more power to make their determinations about where money is spent and it it bewilders
▶ 3:19:26me why people would want to come to Congress be away from their families travel across the country just to hand over all their authority to Donald Trump and that's what has been going on it very may be that Elon Musk has found waste Fraud and Abuse and we would love to work with you
▶ 3:19:56on identifying and eliminating waste Fraud and Abuse we certainly do not support waste Fraud and Abuse and agree that our government bureaucracy has swelled and is too slow but there's a process for that which was used by Pastor presidents I hear my colleagues referencing that Bill Clinton and Al Gore cut 400,000 jobs and that is true but there was a process they did a determination
▶ 3:20:26as to whether or not those jobs were needed they then came back to Congress and made suggestions and then Congress voted on it there's a process for it but you all are so afraid of Donald Trump and Elon musk's money that you won't even ask them to tell us what they're doing it's a complete abdication of your role and yet we hear now that oh we have jurisdiction
▶ 3:20:57over the courts the the executive branch does not I I wish you would be consistent because I agree with you we do and I wish you all would assert your own power in things that really are effecting the American people and Elon Musk is now reportedly gearing up to fire 880,000 more
▶ 3:21:28veterans cut the Social Security Administration in half remove all the regional HUD offices this is not Twitter you can cut Twitter by 75% if you want and what happens is you get a crappy social media platform if you cut the federal government by 75% you are cutting services and funding
▶ 3:21:59that are essential to hundreds of millions of American people and so I hope Mr Isa you will take that view I know you are acting in good faith and I hope you will apply it to the usurpation of Power by the executive branch right now and I yield back gentleman's time has expired as are further the discussion on the ANS uh Mr not thank you Mr chairman I I will uh uh follow Mr Goldman and uh say that we had a delightful conversation last night about
▶ 3:22:29the uh the experiences that we both had representing the United States in in a previous life and um I was recounting to him on the floor of the house that that for me personally there was no greater honor than to stand in front of a jury and to say I represent the United States and we both lamented how uh in some ways partisanship has uh filtered down to local prosecutors offices and local court systems and it is because of that and one of the reasons that I would
▶ 3:22:59support um this proposal is because it nonpartisan this was the uh bill that was recommended by the judicial conference there was support in the previous Congress for this bill uh without question there is a great need for new Federal Judicial Jud IAL U nominees and seats and we as Congress we owe it to our constituents we owe it to the country to enable the court system to administer Justice and to and to meet the needs of the
▶ 3:23:29population and uh from my own District in the eastern part of North Carolina there is clearly a great need I was not here uh last year but I will I will certainly put in a plug at some point to address those needs but this bill as it currently stands um I'm in full support and uh given that it was recommended in 2023 by the judicial conference it staggers the nominations uh I think it's a great recipe for a need that all of us feel who who practiced in front of federal courts across this country I yield back would the
▶ 3:23:59gentleman yield yes yield okay I'll be I'll be brief because I'm not going to probably seek time on my own I'm going to just make one appeal that my colleagues consider before this comes to a a vote when this passes the house it may or may not pass on a bipartisan basis as it did last Congress but let us all understand it is going to the other body the other body took our language made their own language and passed something
▶ 3:24:30unanimously the other body is the body that some members uh here doubt that they will retain what they have had for Generations which is the blue slip respected at the district court level and these are all district court I would say to to my colleag Coles talk to your Senator and I think what you're going to find is that your Senators will say they're quite comfortable they're going to keep the blue slip or they won't vote for the bill and this bill will not pass the Senate unless it gets
▶ 3:25:0060 votes to to get past cloer so understand this will this will be a bipartisan bill in the Senate perhaps in its current form perhaps with some senatorial uh discretion but it will pass on a broadly bipartisan and bases I would ask that we consider making it do just that here for the benefit of all and I thank the gentleman yielding will the Gent yield gentleman Mr not yield Yi thank you I just I just wanted to see if I could assist Mr Goldman
▶ 3:25:31in some of his confusion over the fundamental architecture of our Constitution which is of course the separation of powers congress makes law but cannot enforce it the president enforces law but cannot make it the Congress de decares War but cannot wage it the president wages War but cannot declare it in the case of this bill Congress creates positions but cannot fill them the president fills positions but cannot create them and regarding
▶ 3:26:01his confusion over Mr musk's role in this process Congress appropriates funds but cannot spend them the executive spends funds but cannot appropriate them I will the gentleman yield for a question to Mr not I yield thank you um Mr chairman I if I don't disagree with you uh I guess the the question I would have is then my job here is done is there is there any uh is there any oversight responsibility
▶ 3:26:31from Congress to ensure that the president and the executive branch follows the laws that we pass because I sat here for two years in the Congress and I can assure you that you and and your colleagues have a very expansive view of congress's oversight Authority at least when there's a Democratic
▶ 3:27:02president but when our laws that are passed are blatantly disregarded and violated somehow that oversight Authority just goes away and so I would point out to you that you are right except that we do have an obligation to hold the executive branch accountable to abide by the letter of the laws that we pass and I hope you will we cannot declare ourselves the executive branch of the government Constitution vests that Authority
▶ 3:27:32with the president gentleman's time has expired as a further discussion on the ANS Mr Nadler Mr chairman I have great respect for the gentleman from California Mr Isa and I was proud to work with him and with ranking member Johnson in good in good faith during the last Congress to advance this legislation we agreed on the need to authorize new federal judgeships for the growing case load in the federal courts but we also agreed that it was absolutely essential that we consider this legislation
▶ 3:28:03before the presidential election so that it could be voted on before anyone knew which party would control the first set of judicial appointments the Senate held up its end of the bargain and passed the bill unanimously over the summer but unfortunately the Republican leadership decided to play politics despite our urge and pleas to move the bill to the floor before November so that neither party would have an advantage and both would be taking an equal risk they decided to bottle it up it was only after their candidate
▶ 3:28:33won that they brought the bill to the house floor breaking the essential element of the deal and when Democrats opposed the bill Republicans had the audacity to cry foul and to say that we were playing politics it was a sad demise for a bill that should have been a true bipartisan success story I had hoped that after this episode we would all take a moment and restart start bipartisan negotiations on a path forward but instead we are barreling ahead taking
▶ 3:29:03up the same bill with the same timeline for creating new judgeships which presents exactly the same problem we faced in December we have already seen what kind of Judges Donald Trump puts on the during his first term he stacked the courts with dangerously unqualified and ideological appointees many of whom appeared to be more faithful to Donald Trump and his agenda than to the rule of law and now with a nearly unbroken losing Street in court to begin his second term it would
▶ 3:29:33be irresponsible to give him 23 new appointments that he can use to install judges who are un who are unwilling to stand up to his administration's unlawful actions Mr chairman no one denies that new federal judges are needed the only question is how to add them in a way that is fair to all parties I hope that we can return to the spirit of bipartisanship that first animated this bill but if Republicans insist on jamming this legislation through on a partisan basis once more
▶ 3:30:04I must urge my colleagues to oppose it I yield back gentleman yelds back a further discussion on the ANS Mr MOS Mr MOS thank you appreciate it uh Mr chairman uh former chairman Isis said something that I I found interesting I wanted to see if he would engage on it because I think maybe maybe there's a moment in which in which we could work together he said and he's right by the way that uh Congress and this committee
▶ 3:30:34along with TNI have jurisdiction over those Federal buildings and not Elon Musk Elon Musk and the executive do not have jurisdiction um and I don't want to put words in his mouth but I believe that would is the summary that it's this uh would the would the gentleman ask the chairman of this committee to do a committee letter together Democrats and Republicans a committee letter to Elon letting him know that we appreciate his recommendation but we have the jurisdiction along
▶ 3:31:04with Transportation over the federal court buildings and not the executive if if this committee would do a letter to Elon asserting that Authority I'll vote for the bill if the gentleman would yield I would uh I can't speak for the chairman of full committee but as chairman of the Court's subcommittee um I'm happy to enter with my ranking member um a letter I will be with Elon Musk this evening oddly enough on on other matters and when I heard this from
▶ 3:31:35the gentleman from Tennessee I planned on asking him a question about it I'm happy to take a bipartisan letter saying you know it is the opinion of this committee that uh that courts currently housing judges in concert with TNI and GSA can only be closed or or replaced to the extent that there are facilities sufficient for now and anticipated additional judges you you're absolutely right it could be
▶ 3:32:05that this what we the gentleman from Tennessee said may be true or it may not be but it's clear that this committee is not going to have judges able to perform their job just the opposite we sometimes push pretty hard on TNI to try to get our courtrooms uh up to Snuff because oddly enough the the federal court kind of pays for their own courtrooms but GSA oversees it and T and I authorize it just just for claiming my time real quick and so I I appreciate
▶ 3:32:35that you're going to have a private conversation with Mr mus no I said I would take a letter to him yeah so I mean the question I have then and I and I appreciate your support and so and I appreciate your vote on the bill well we're not there yet yet we're not there yet this is this is this is a work in progress cuz I see the chairman hanging in the doorway um will the Judiciary Committee can be a polite letter to Elon I'm doesn't need to be antagonistic will the Judiciary Committee assert its Authority and notify Elon Musk that it is this committee along with TNI that has
▶ 3:33:06jurisdiction uh over whether the courts close or not and not the executive will we make a public statement Democrats and Republicans on official judiciary committee letterhead will the chairman commit to that if the chairman will commit to that on the record that we're going to do a letter together as a unit asserting our constitutional Authority I'll vote for your bill you mean I'm just chop liver the subcommittee chairman isn't good enough listen listen remember as a Jew I me at hello as a Jew I love chop liver especially during Passover so
▶ 3:33:36and as a shabish I'm telling you you know I'm not chop liver come on so are you willing to take you know this like Shark Tank are you willing to take a subcommittee chairman a great sub give him all the minerals in South Florida the mineral rights I'm not willing to part with the mineral rights of South Florida in exchange for this letter okay but I will cut off Aid if know
▶ 3:34:06will the gentleman yield I I will yield just to clarify the terms of your offer you're talking about a public letter right a public letter on Judiciary stationary from the Comm committee with Democrats and Republicans on it again doesn't have to be antagonistic but just letting him know that the executive branch does not have the authority to close those courts that is vested in this committee and in TNI if the gentleman further yield I will yield um I've been informed that that we will work diligently to have that letter ready by the time it comes
▶ 3:34:36to the full house floor so hold that vote Fair uh for the floor if you would please fair enough I I'll make that deal with you thank you gentleman yields back Is there further discussion on the ANS gentleman from California my colleague from California want to clarify you will have the letter on the floor now I what I said is I'm going to work with the chairman to see if we can have that letter the gentleman had said he would vote for it if the letter goes out
▶ 3:35:06we're going to need we're going to clearly need some time so do you you going to make any commitment right now I'm making the commitment to work diligently on it are you making the commitment to vote for it on the floor if that letter goes out I'm making a commitment to vote for it right now if you will essentially well if you'll take the subcommittee chairman I'm willing to you know like I say I'm going to be the subcommittee chairman is on and the full committee chairman is working on it as well that's correct thank you will the gentan Y of course that sounds like a pretty good deal if you're going to go with it I mean a public letter with you and the
▶ 3:35:36subcommittee chairman to Elon Musk saying that this is within the jurisdiction of our committee and within the jurisdiction of Congress and not up to him him that's a positive step you back thanks we said it was going to be a polite letter so I'm not going to say it's not up to him I'm going to say it is up to us because it is we we will assert our jurisdiction look the there is nothing more important to this committee than making sure that the people who adjudicate Federal cases including constitutional
▶ 3:36:07cases have the assets necessary and that has been an honor for me to serve on this subcommittee that way and I and I do take it serously and I I appreciate the gentleman's help and vote and signature on that letter apprciate your commitment to I thank the gentleman moving forward with this issue thank you sir gentleman you back there further discussion on the ANS does Mr grothman seek time to yield Mr nod gentleman's recognized thank you Mr chair may I ask my colleague a quick
▶ 3:36:37question is is your letter intended to preempt some action for court staffs judicial staff I guess what the impetus for the concern is that to me yes sure so I I just the point of the sorry if I'm being redundant you're not being redundant and listen I I don't I'm not gonna I'm not going to draft Mr Isa or Mr Jordan's letter for them I I think the point was is Mr Isa made a passionate plea about how this
▶ 3:37:07should be a bipartisan issue and made a bipartisan plea that this power is reserved within Congress within the judici iary Branch uh within the Judiciary Committee and within TNI uh after the information that uh Mr Cohen brought up uh and so what what I'm TR what I'm trying to do here is I'm trying to say then as Democrats Republicans let in a polite way because I know we're not going to get impolite with Mr musk we don't want to upset him but in a
▶ 3:37:37polite way do a letter just informing him that while he made that has his opinion and made that statement that actually that power is reserved here that that that and I I think together as a unit speaking together I think I think that's important because what you're asking us to do is to take a leap of faith and what I'm asking you to do is to make sure the executive branch doesn't step on powers reserved for congress thank you gentleman Yi
▶ 3:38:07with the yield yes I Y thank you first I like to make a it you see on on the list of properties that they were talking about without objection and secondly I would like to commit to to to Mr Isa to vote for the bill on your kind offer to to stand up for this committee so I'm on bill gentleman yields back Mr Mr grman back uh Is there further discussion on ANS yes
▶ 3:38:38oh you already spoken it's an amendment oh chair recognize Mr asking for an amendment and I've got Amendment at the desk Mr chairman clerk will report the amendment Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 1702 offered by Mr Rasin page two line 14 strike 2025 and insert 2029 page five beginning line without objection the amendment we considered is read gentleman's recognized for five minutes thank you Mr
▶ 3:39:08chairman and I too pledge to vote for the bill if we pass this amendment um the amendment is simple it reinstates the agreement that Republicans and Democrats unanimously agreed to last year uh Mr Isis Bill touches on an area where there is actual substantive agreement between the two parties we agree the courts need more federal judges it's been more than three decades since we passed a law increasing their numbers and for a few months last Congress we all had a unified
▶ 3:39:38plan to do something about it a bipartisan deal to give the federal courts all of the added judges that have been asked for by the judicial conference um ranking member Hank Johnson and chairman darl Isa worked on a painstaking and honorable bipartisan basis to create a bill that would have spread additional District Court judgeship appointments recommended by the judicial conference over multiple presidential administrations beginning with the next unknown president that was the key pass the bill before
▶ 3:40:08the election so no one would know whether this party or that party might benefit the Senate upheld their end of the Bur bargain and passed the bill on a bipartisan basis last August then suddenly mysteriously incomprehensibly the House GOP leadership suddenly broke the promise and refused to bring the bill up for a vote before the presidential election before any of us knew who would be winning instead they waited to know who would be the president if it was Harris
▶ 3:40:38obviously they would oppose it if it were Trump they would support it so they broke the deal and then they undermined the prospect of our actually dealing with this problem I'd like to take a moment today to give my colleagues across the aisle now the chance for us to renew the original bargain and do the right thing my Amendment would simply reinstate the deal that we agreed upon last year the number of judicial appointments is the same the order of appointments by state is the same and just as before these appointments would begin with the next
▶ 3:41:09president whomever that may be of whichever party you can join me in ranking member Johnson today in supporting the federal Judiciary without any partisan politics let us have as our motto Equal justice under law and not have as our motto heads I win taals you lose I yield back and thank you Mr chairman J goes back so further discussion on the amendment by Mr Raskin Mr is um I'll be I'll be brief one we can't wait four years
▶ 3:41:39uh justce delayed as just as de denied we have three plus years of wai on important cases ones that cost the American people through the both plff and defendants billions of dollars we talked about the cost the fact is the cost of the judges pales in comparison to the cost to the economy um secondly as I said earlier we all supported this bill knowing
▶ 3:42:09full well that one of two were going to win and we knew the names of the Republican and Democratic nominees um I'm not going to dispute the uh U the ranking member and others saying that it would have been better had we done it sooner it would have been better had we done it in August uh I'm not going to disagree with any of that but we are where we are I was always for it on a nonpartisan basis strive to do so the senate in an effort to be even
▶ 3:42:39better at it in fact stretch the term out a little will say to my my colleagues sadly opposing waiting four years but I would strongly suggest that in concert with our friends on the Democratic side including Senator Grassley who previously affirmed that district courts would continue to have the blue slip I believe that we can have a solid understanding that that will be maintained additionally I'm happy to work with
▶ 3:43:09because in our hearing uh the uh the judge and others Affirmed that if we give judges anywhere if they have to they will move them around I'm perfectly willing to look at the table that I handed out work in good faith with both senators and house members to move around which states get it when to find try to find one that everyone agrees optimizes the nonpartisan nature some may say that moving forward red States
▶ 3:43:39actually would be better since the blue States would possibly get a better deal under the next president or vice versa moving blue States so that using the the blue slip they can uh clearly limit the nature of those I am Switzerland when it comes to uh that other than perhaps having a a certain re feeling that Oklahoma needs them sooner because of of cases that are pending there but I'll work in good
▶ 3:44:09faith with anyone on those kinds of changes I cannot move a bill in this Congress that delays for 4 years the next Congress we may be back here again talking about it and as we get closer and closer to the end of the Trump term we could do that but if we wait those four years we're not doing our constitutional Duty we're not doing what's right for the court and I would ask that we move the bill today continue working on it uh on a on a truly nonpartisan
▶ 3:44:40basis to find a final bill and with with that I would yield back gem bags for further discussion on the amendment by Mr Rasin Mr Nails yes thank you Mr chairman I I I'm a proud co-sponsor of the legislation I want to thank uh representative Isa for championing this issue it's a it's a shame Biden you know he Ved this bill last Congress because it is a critical piece of legislation the federal district courts are severely backed up across
▶ 3:45:10this country and Texas in particularly bad shape as of 2024 the southern district of Texas which encompasses my district had 6,82 civil cases pending and 8928 criminal cases and that is a massive backlog folks districts like mine also have uh a lack of rural courtroom locations which compounds the problem the judges act would help alleviate this backlog by adding additional four judges to the southern district of Texas
▶ 3:45:40over the next 10 years as well as an additional courtroom located right there in College Station Texas I urge my colleagues to support that legis this legislation to ensure that our citizens have meaningful access to the courts which is a fundamental right under the Constitution I you back gentleman Ys back are further discussion on the amendment seeing none the question is on the adoption of the amendment by Mr Rasin uh could we have a recorded vote Please Mr chairman we need to first
▶ 3:46:11uh those in favor say I those opposed say no no the NOS have it and the uh ranking member asks for a uh recorded vote the secretary will call the rule Mr Jordan Mr Isa Mr Isa votes no Mr Bigs Mr Mento no Mr Mento votes no Mr Tiffany Mr Massie Mr Roy Mr
▶ 3:46:42Fitzgerald Mr Klein Mr Gooden Mr Gooden votes no Mr van Drew Mr Nells Mr Nells votes no Mr Moore Mr Moore votes no Mr Kylie Mr Kylie votes no Miss Hegman Miss Hagman votes no Miss Lee Miss Lee votes no Mr Hunt Mr Fry Mr grathan Mr grathan votes no Mr not Mr Harris Mr Harris votes
▶ 3:47:12no Mr and Mr and votes no Mr Schmidt Mr Schmidt votes no Mr Gil Mr bomgardner Mr bomgardner votes no Mr Raskin I Mr Rasin votes I Mr Nadler I Mr Nadler votes I miss lren Mr Cohen Mr Cohen votes I Mr Johnson Mr swell Mr SW votes I Mr Lou Miss Gul
▶ 3:47:46Korea Mr Korea votes I miss scanland miss scanland votes I Mr nus Miss mcbath Miss Ross Miss ballant Miss ballant votes I Garcia Miss camer Dove Miss camer Dove votes I Mr mosquit Mr mosquit votes I Mr Goldman Mr Goldman votes I miss Crockett
▶ 3:48:17Mr not Mr not votes no Mr Fitz charal Mr Fitzgerald votes no Mr Fry Mr Fry votes no Mr Garcia votes no Mr Garcia votes
▶ 3:48:54Mr Lou you are not recorded I Mr Lou votes I cler report Mr chairman there are 12 eyes and 16 nose vote being 12 in the affirmative and 16 in the negative the the amendment is not adopted
▶ 3:49:24the question is on the adoption of the ANS Is there further discussion seeing none the questions on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute this will be followed immediately by a vote on reporting the bill those in favor of the ANS will say I I those opposed say no no in the opinion of the chair the have it and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted the question is on favorably reporting the bill as amended those in favor say I I
▶ 3:49:54those opposed say no those opposed say no no the eyes have it the bill is ordered to be reported favorably to the house can we have a recorded vote please gentleman's asked for recorded vote uh the uh clerk will call the role Mr Jordan Mr Isa I Mr Isa votes I Mr Big Mr mlto I Mr ment votes I Mr Tiffany Mr Massie Mr Roy Mr
▶ 3:50:26Fitzgerald Mr Klein Mr Gooden Mr goodam votes I Mr van Drew Mr Nells Mr Nells votes yes Mr Moore Mr Mo votes I Mr Kylie Mr Kylie votes I miss Hegman yes Miss Miss Hagman votes yes Miss Lee yes Miss Lee votes yes Mr Hunt Mr Fry Mr grathan Mr grman votes yes Mr
▶ 3:50:56not Mr not votes I Mr Harris Mr Harris votes I Mr and Mr and votes I Mr Schmidt Mr Schmidt votes I Mr Gil Mr bomgardner Mr bomgardner VES I Mr Rasin nope Mr Rasin votes no Mr Nadler Mr Nadler Mr Nadler Mr nler votes no miss lren
▶ 3:51:26Mr Cohen no Mr Cohen votes no Mr Johnson Mr swallow Mr swallow votes no Mr Lou no Mr Lou votes no miss jaipal Mr kah I Mr kah votes I miss scanland Miss ganin votes no Mr nus Miss mcbath Miss Ross Miss ballet Mr Garcia Mr
▶ 3:51:56Garcia votes no Miss camer Dove no Miss camer du votes no Mr moscowitz Mr Goldman Mr Goldman votes no Miss Crockett Mr mosquit you are not recorded Mr mosit votes no
▶ 3:52:27Miss Crockett you're not recorded no Miss Crockett votes no Mr Klein votes I clerk report Mr chairman
▶ 3:52:57There are 16 eyes and 11 nose quot being 16 in the affirmative and 11 did you say in the negative the uh uh bill is ordered reported favorably to the house members will have two days to submit views without objection the bill will be reported as a single amendment in the nature of a substitute incorporating all adopted amendments and staff is authorized to make Technical and
▶ 3:53:39changes pursuant to notice I call up hr1 1526 the no Rogue rulings act for purposes of markup and move that the Committee reported favorably to the house the clerk will report the bill hr1 1526 to amend title 28 United not objection the bill will be considered as read and open for Amendment at any point Sher recognizes the gentleman from California Mr Isa for an opening statement thank you Mr chairman since the start of of President Trump's second term Democrat activist
▶ 3:54:09with the support of sympathetic judges have secured Nationwide injunctions that have halted the implementation of more than a dozen executive actions and executive orders the President's actions span critical policy areas that he was elected to address including immigration federal spending regulatory reforms and the like let me be clear the injunctions are nothing more than partisan judicial overreach and have dis disrupted the president's ability
▶ 3:54:39to carry out his lawful constitutional Duty these Nationwide injunctions have been exceptionally Broad in scope and apply not only to the parties that sought the injunction in the case but also to non-parties meaning unlike class action suits these are being classed without the creation of a class this has allowed activist judges to shape National policy across the entire country
▶ 3:55:09sometimes the uh Constitution never and something this constitution contemplated no r no Rogue rulings act or Norah curbs these overreach by by District judges by limiting the scope of the injunctive relief to only those parties before the court rather than being applied universally applied universally being in the ordinary course of the Constitution a right of the Supreme Court
▶ 3:55:40by limiting the scope of such injunctions to chest parties in a particular case the bill will prevent any one of nearly 700 judges from making a decision that affects the entire country the bill will also deter Forum shopping because a president's political opponents won't be able to cherry-pick a sympathetic judge who is most likely to go along with blocking the president uh from Nationwide this change
▶ 3:56:10ensures that legal challenges the executive branch focus on the effect of the actions have on that party in a particular place rather than Nationwide political ramifications let me be clear if many parties join in a single action many parties are present but certainly not those not present including throughout the country where they might in fact not want such an injunction
▶ 3:56:41in short nor restores proper judicial restriction rint to focus on the effect the effectiveness of the executive actions and actual Li litigations and not political preferences by individual judges or interest groups I want to make one thing clear these cases behind me and our bill if the shoe was on the other foot by the time we get done today I want this to be a piece of legislation that is equally liked
▶ 3:57:11or disliked and equally Fair no matter who the next president is we are not passing a law for the current occupant of the White House we are passing a law that will improve the effectiveness of the executive branch and the reasonable challenges to actions by an executive branch now and for the rest of the many years of our great Republic I want to thank the chairman chairman for bringing this important legislation to the committee and I urge support for the bill and I yield back chairman yields back and now recognize
▶ 3:57:41the ranking member Mr Rasin for his opening Mr chairman thank you very much um the the chart is fascinating because the gentleman seems Tolo behind if if you keep it up that would be great because the the implication of this chart is that somehow the courts have done something wrong rather than Donald Trump having done something wrong the reason there are 64 injunctions against him is because he is trampling the lawmaking and spending powers of the Congress of the United States he's violating
▶ 3:58:11the Civil Service rights of federal workers and he's betraying the federal law in every particular way if anything that chart demonstrates precisely why we need the law to be exactly as it is the whole purpose of temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions is to stop actions by government that are causing irreparable harm where there is a likelihood of the plaintiff to succeed on the merits of the case and so the neutral law that my good friend from
▶ 3:58:42California uh is Hope for actually exists right now this is the way it's always been and so I don't know how many injunctions there were under Biden I can't see um is it 14 14 well I I I don't know I don't know exactly what the right number is uh but if he uh if there were regulations or actions by the government under Biden that met the standards of a temporary restraining order preliminary injunction then that is
▶ 3:59:12the necessary and ER mechanism of the law but nobody's seen anything like what Donald Trump has been doing as Donald Trump told us last night you might love it you might hate it but as he said it's radically unprecedented for the executive branch of government to go in to try to hollow out the federal government of the United States so look from our perspective um when the Donald Trump says we're going to freeze all spending that has been appropriated
▶ 3:59:43by the Congress of the United States of America that is a violation of our spending power right a an Appropriations Act is a federal law just like the law that says you can't beat up federal officers an Appropriations Act is a federal law it's not a budgetary recommendation to the president and it might be right it might be wrong it might be the smartest appropriation in the world it might be the dumbest appropriation in the world but it is the appropriation of the Congress of the United States
▶ 4:00:14and so the courts rightfully were saying no you have no power just to randomly arbitrarily unilaterally monarchic freeze the spending of the Congress of the United States we are the lawmaking power so the the gentleman's Bill uh invites us basically to uh destroy a mechanism which is available to all Americans in which by the way they freely availed themselves of uh of under
▶ 4:00:44um President Biden there's a a judge in uh Texas uh who's who became famous although I can't remember his name somebody will tell me casmer judge kasmer um who issued repeated Nationwide injunctions to implement a right-wing agenda the problem there of course was Forum Shopping Court shopping judge shopping but if the if the case had actually been properly before him then and he was properly interpreting the
▶ 4:01:14interpreting the law which he was not but it would necessarily lie that it should apply to everybody across the country I mean this is like saying in uh Brown versus Board of Education that the desegregation order should apply only to Linda Brown and the other plaintiffs in the case as opposed to applying everybody in the country um that just doesn't make any sense so uh we're gonna oppose this uh very strongly the the um
▶ 4:01:45is a a betrayal of what in fact is objective neutral procedural mechanisms in the law that are well understood and if it's unconstitutional for people in New York or Texas or Louisiana or California it's unconstitutional for everybody in the country if it's a federal policy happy to yield back gentlemen y's back the Gent from California is recognized Mr chairman I have an amendment at the desk uh clerk will report amendment in the nature of objection
▶ 4:02:15be considered as read the gentleman is recognized to explain his Amendment consider and consider base text for the purposes thank you Mr chairman the amendment modifies the title of the bill and makes uh it more understood uh it is intended in no way to alter the important purpose of the bill and I urge support and I might caveat that uh we do have a number of of amendments on our side that have been carefully worked out that came in by uh
▶ 4:02:45members on our side who were equally concerned at making sure that this bill strikes a balance not based on how many back and forths there are between uh who got more but based on a growing Trend uh of using these and we believe that when the uh ranking member and other members on the other side see the Amendments they'll agree that the bill is intended to be balanced and is intended to preserve many of the uh things that the uh ranking member is concerned
▶ 4:03:15about so with that Mr chairman uh I urge uh support for the under for the amendment and the nature of a substitute and yield back gentleman gentleman yields back who seeks recognition gentleman from Kansas recognized thank you Mr chairman and uh I have an amendment at the desk Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute correct all right reserve a point of order Mr order reserved by the ranking member the clerk will uh report Amendment to the amendment and the nature
▶ 4:03:45of a substitute objection the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute will be considered as read the gentleman from Kansas recognize to explain his Amendment thank you Mr chairman and I want to thank the sponsor of the bill uh I had raised in a much more limited fashion but certainly uh some of the concerns of the ranking member has expressed in a a much more U much broader um the amendment is intended to provide a safety valve pardon me can I have a drink something here
▶ 4:04:16excuse me chairman um is intended to provide a safety valve that provides that balance and make sure that um uh there is still an appropriate tool available in appropriate cases uh with the chart that was discussed earlier I was Council to uh my client the state of Kansas on several though certainly not all of those cases certainly some of the 12 and some of the 14 during the Obama and Biden years I might have been during some of the Trump years I actually don't recall I haven't gone back and looked at all of them um but represent a state is a different animal
▶ 4:04:46from representing a private party in fact the Supreme Court has recognized that for some purposes for example standing in some of these challenges not that this is a standing issue uh states have special solicitude in defending uh their role in our federal system and certainly when the federal government thank you takes action uh States may have an interest so this amendment is intended to um ensure that that balance remains available uh it would provide uh essentially a carveout provision uh that could apply in a limited number of
▶ 4:05:16circumstances where the base rule of the underlying bill which is no Nationwide injunctions uh except only as to the parties uh would apply and the exception would would uh be available when states are the parties the plaintiffs two or more States uh in at least two circuits depending on how many states so that you don't have a parochial localized interest tends to demonstrate a national interest uh in that that case if a nationwide injunction is to be
▶ 4:05:46sought uh the matter would be heard by a three judge panel at The District Court Level under the uh ordinary statute that does those things except we would provide that the appointment of the three judges for the panel would be uh randomized so that you don't have a circumstance where a chief judge for example might uh be tempted or able to uh handpick judges of a certain uh philosophy or or predisposition uh uh and then it would provide in the event uh that Nationwide injunction is either entered or
▶ 4:06:16not entered if it's sought uh a party would have the ability to appeal if they so chose directly to the Supreme Court so this is designed to do several things uh first of all to minimize the benefit to plaintiffs of forum shopping because you aren't certain who your judges are going to be uh and to make sure that no single judge is in a position of entering a nationwide injunction that goes beyond the parties on these matters of sort of public policy concern second to make clear that states have a particularized role in some of this Federal
▶ 4:06:47uh Federalist litigation as to the federal government and third to minimize the ability of litigant to gum up or delay process which sometimes may be a portion of the strategy here um just as Justice delayed is Justice denied sometimes uh federal policy delayed can be uh uh uh justice denied so that's the intent and what the amendment does Mr chairman I am grateful to Mr Isa and to others who have worked with us on this at some length L uh obviously as a former State Attorney General I'm particularly sensitive
▶ 4:07:17in this area and I think uh this Cuts both ways uh allow um folks of both parties to use it jman yield certainly I just want to make sure I appreciate your work on this working with the sponsor uh I just want to make sure I understand districts um there could be an appeal to it a sort of an expedited review to a three-judge panel with then the ability to appeal to the Supreme court is that is that how we're in in in The Limited circumstance you described
▶ 4:07:48where it's involving multiple districts in its in its uh action brought by States yes sir State plaintiff multiple State plaintiffs uh States plaintiffs from multiple circuits goes to a three judge panel uh and has an expedited review potential multiple States multiple circuits three judge panel expedited review within a further review possible at to the Supreme Court correct all right I think that I appreciate with the gentleman further yield certainly um in my understanding in in our staff's working together on this
▶ 4:08:18so diligently and your personal engagement you had examples of where it has been a practice to have three judge panels when we really do want to make sure that it has the full weight and consideration and that's what allows for a reasonable appeal directly to the Supreme Court yes that that's correct there the existing statute with respect to three judge panels applies in various circumstances the one that most commonly has arisen in my own experience experiences with respect to redistricting but there are others that are provided for by the statute uh
▶ 4:08:48and uh and then having the direct appeal likewise and this further yielding this this by definition limits the ability of one judge a rogue judge well in fact not changing the fact that if it's a good decision three judges will reach the same decision absolutely and that is the intention uh to minimize the to use the term of the statute the title of the statute the the potential for a rogue judge as this as the bill terms it uh while still allowing uh access when it is truly necessary and appropriate gentleman's time is expired appreciate his Amendment the
▶ 4:09:18chair now recognize the ranking member thank you very much Mr chairman and um I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment which um on my standards it it takes an F Bill and turns it into a D minus bill so I will support it but I don't think it gives the bill a passing grade because um when I look at the litigation that's been brought in the first Furious 6 weeks of the Trump Administration um
▶ 4:09:48there there have been uh overwhelming victories against the Trump Administration as the chart helpfully instructs um but um only a handful of them come from States so for example uh there's a win um with New Hampshire on the birthright citizenship issue which of course it was blatantly constitutional to attempt to just nullify Birthright citizenship the very first uh sentence of the 14th Amendment um and New York versus Donald Trump
▶ 4:10:19which had to do with um illegal disclosure of personal and financial records to uh the Doge group the department of government efficiency so there were wins there but most of the wins came by individuals um so take for example um the removal of independent agency leaders in uh American Federation of teachers versus bessent or delinger versus bessent I mean the vast
▶ 4:10:49majority of those being harmed by uh the the Trump musk offensive against our constitution here are individuals they're people who are beneficiaries of uh Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid they are individual workers at um the NIH or uh at the you know Noah the National Weather Service who are being uh sacked unilaterally
▶ 4:11:19um and arbitrarily uh by the administration and so on those people should have equal rights to get into court and they have interests that are replicated all across the country so uh obviously that provision would then Channel everything into uh State litigation uh in order to have a nationwide clarification of what people's rights are but I just don't don't see the logic of carving out that exception uh I'm willing to vote for it because again it makes
▶ 4:11:49um uh a really unnecessary and retrograde Bill slightly better but it doesn't solve the basic problem that we're nullifying tros and injunctions uh on a nationwide basis when they apply nationally to people who are being harmed by offensive governmental action I yeld back with the gentleman yield yes I would uh you know I I might say that if you look at the amendment uh the second paragraph where it says page
▶ 4:12:19one line 17 that in fact does encourage uh the formation of a class action uh so that it it would include if you will the entire class but I think the most important thing and I'll ask it as not if if you interrupt if I could interrupt one second we maybe we got the wrong Amendment because am oh this is it your Amendment rather yeah oh gotcha okay but um we we sort of doing two at once as we speak uh but uh Mr ranking member
▶ 4:12:50the the rhetorical question I'm asking uh and it's not completely rhetorical is if we look at the allegations made against the current president in these various cases if the world were as just as it could be and the court was as good as it would be would it not form a g a three judge panel in a matter of of of days just as quickly as a single judge convene make a decision and the Supreme Court act in a in an expedited
▶ 4:13:20fashion so in a very short period of time uncertainty would be consistently uh uh resolved wouldn't that be the best case uh as compared to today where you may or may not get injunctive relief and it can be uncertain you know what the gentleman uh uh Mr Schmidt has done here is he's created for the most common case which is States objecting to uh these actions he's created a a I think a very clever expedited
▶ 4:13:51C possibility it may be a bit of a burden on the Supreme Court But ultimately these cases get to the Supreme Court and he has come up with I think a a good protective way to get to the court quicker and when the Sho is on the other foot I know that you're going to love this the shoe is the shoe is not really bad today as you said D minus you know I'm a Kent State graduate that's a passing grade I'd like a c but but you know I'm I'm thank you for getting off the F well but again I'm going to support his
▶ 4:14:21Amendment because I do think it it makes it marginally better but it to me it doesn't redeem the whole Enterprise because the system is working and it's working in a necessary way here I don't understand uh our colleagues determination to try to remove every obstacle to what Donald Trump and Elon Musk want to do even constitutional obstacles even legal obstacles I thought as the Judiciary Committee we would really be determined to stick with the law the time of gentleman expired the question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman
▶ 4:14:51from the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute all those in favor say I I those opposed no pin the chairs the eyes have it the amendment is adopted to the is added to the amendment in the amendment in the nature of subtitute um who seeks recognition gentleman from George is recogniz uh Mr chairman I have an amendment at the desk clerk a report Reserve point of order point of order reserved by the gentleman from California clerk will report the amendment Amendment to the amendment not objection the amend will be considered as read i'
▶ 4:15:21object to the waving of the reading okay the C read the amendment Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to hr1 1526 offered by Mr Johnson page one insert after line three the following and redesignate succeeding sections accordingly section two findings Congress finds the following since take office the Trump Administration has sought to tear apart our Democratic institutions through unlawful and unconstitutional executive actions because federal
▶ 4:15:51courts keep ruling against the administration republicans in Congress are seeking to change the laws to help the Trump agenda two the court in kasav V Trump when imposing injunctive relief found that quote the executive order flouts the plain language of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution conflicts with binding Supreme Court president and runs counter to our nation's 250e history of citizenship by birth the president does not have the authority
▶ 4:16:22to strip them of their constitutional right to citizenship by birth three the court and National Council of nonprofits verse OMB when imposing injunctive relief found that the quote defendants actions in this case potentially run roofed of over a bu work of the Constitution by interfering with congress's appropriation of federal funds and it attempted to rest the power of the purse away from the only
▶ 4:16:52branch of government entitled to wield it end quote four the court in Washington V Trump when imposing injunctive relief found that quote the United States Constitution exclusively grants the power of the purse to congress not the president and the president does not have unilateral authority to refuse to spend the fund Congress appropriates the executive order thus amounts to an end run around the separation of powers not only has the
▶ 4:17:22administration claimed for itself congress's exclusive spending power it has also attempted to C congress's power to legislate end quote five and the court in New York V Trump when imposing injunctive relief found that quote the executive statement that the executive branch has a duty to align federal spending and action with the will of the American people as expressed through presidential priorities is a flawed
▶ 4:17:53statement the executive branch has a duty to align federal spending and action with the will of the people as expressed through Congressional Appropriations not through presidential PRI priorities end quote gentleman's recognized thank you Mr chairman I thank the clerk for her uh reading of that uh the judicial branch ensures that people corporations and E even other branches of government follow the law and if a government entity does
▶ 4:18:23something illegal the only way for the court to prevent thousands of people from being harmed is to order a nationwide injunction that stops the government from doing that illegal thing it is essential to our democracy that the courts can serve as a check on an executive branch or even a legislative branch that is trampling people's rights while proponents of the underlying Bill say that everyone should bring their own cases that just
▶ 4:18:53doesn't make sense there's no way that each of the thousands of people harmed could pay for their own lawyer get into a courtroom and try their own case aside from the difficulty and cost to everyone our courts could never handle that volume of cases their dockets are already bursting at the seams and Justice would be so delayed that it would be denied by default plus that might lead to
▶ 4:19:24unfairness and variation if judges one state or one County over ruled differently on the same set of facts it would be inefficient cost prohibitive unfair and unjust Republicans only want this bill because federal courts keep ruling against Trump unlawful and unconstitutional executive actions therefore they are trying to hamstring the courts from stopping him we need our courts to continue to serve as a
▶ 4:19:54bullwark of democracy against the Trump administration's flood of illegal actions that's why I object to this bill however if the bill is to move forward I believe it should include my proposed findings relaying the Court's vivid language about why the injunctions they are imposing were so necessary and so vital to American democracy this includes the Court's opinion in National Council of nonprofits
▶ 4:20:24versus OMB that the administration's actions quote potentially run rough Shard over the bullwark of the Constitution end quote and that the administration quote attempted to rest the power of the pur away from the only branch of government entitled to wield it end quote namely Us in the legislature my findings Amendment also includes the Court's opinion in Washington V Trump
▶ 4:20:55stating that the executive order in the case quote amounts to an inrun around the separation of powers end quote this is important information that needs to be a part of the record when we are deciding whether to completely Abend the delicate system of checks IM balances that has sustained our democracy for nearly 250 years I hope that you will support my Amendment although I will be voting against the underlying Bill and with that I yield
▶ 4:21:25back will the gentleman yield for one second I'll I'll yield to the ranking member thank you Mr Johnson and thanks for your thoughtful Amendment um it occurs to me that um our colleagues would invite this checkerboard approach where you'd have to bring a lawsuit in 50 different states and then 43 might say for example the birthright citizenship executive order is clearly unconstitutional as one Reagan judge put it he said it was the easiest case he'd ever had to decide and you don't need
▶ 4:21:55to be a lawyer you just need to know how to read in order to reject this but maybe you could get a handful of judges to say no uh it's constitutional then you've got this fragmented checkerboard approach in any event um why not just let it work its way up uh and so that we could get a decision by an appeals court and the Supreme Court rather than going from 46 injunctions which is what we've got now according to this useful chart to 46
▶ 4:22:26time 50 injunctions right 23 uh 2300 injunctions in the country I mean that that's a total waste of judicial resources and a in an offense to judicial economy you back gentlemen are you gentleman y's back gentleman from California is recognized thank you Mr chairman I'm I'm I'm not reluctant in opposing this amendment I'm a little uh surprised at the uh the nature of it it was kindly I also join in thanking
▶ 4:22:56the clerk for reading the full Bill the amendment as I see it is uh is best seen as footnotes of opinion uh as to uh the bill and not something that would normally be found in a law so for that reason the reason that it doesn't really read it reads like a piece of History not like a uh an amendment I'm going to oppose it but I do want to uh speak to the underlying Bill briefly this amendment implies
▶ 4:23:26somehow that it's all about President Trump and it's not this bill is about fashioning uh a a process that works well in both parties and I want to thank the gentleman from Kansas for making sure in the amendment that now has been agreed to to this amendment that it does it better I might note that when Mr Schmidt was attorney general the fact is um 16 States came together 16 attorney generals that represented all the people
▶ 4:23:57of 16 states there was nobody left with the burden uh because their through their elected process they had created someone to represent them they had pre-agreed to someone to represent them what we're trying to deal with in the underlying bill is that one person who doesn't like something that's been done can go to one judge and affect an entire Nationwide those people may not choose to object
▶ 4:24:27they may be quite pleased with it they haven't been given a chance to be a party and they have not voted for representation I suppose you know in collective bargaining you do Vote or you do ask for representation but they don't this is one individual going to one judge so I would say that when this becomes law it is very possible that we will see more States Attorney General on behalf of two or more States choosing to
▶ 4:24:57go through the process to quickly get a decision from a three judge panel quickly go to an expedited uh event at the Supreme Court and we will see Swift Justice not just as I like not just as the other party lik likes but Justice is defined in our constitution so I'm going to oppose this and ask that we simply move on to the underlying bill which I think now is something that even the ranking member has given it a low but passing grade and with that I yield
▶ 4:25:28back gentleman yields back the question Mr chairman gentleman from New York is recognized I yield to the gentleman from uh Strike last I I moved to Strike last word gentleman's recognized I yield to Mr Johnson uh I thank the gentleman for yielding um the gentleman from California argues that this legislation is not put forward in response to supporting uh Donald Trump's recklessness and unlawfulness
▶ 4:25:58but I submit that the timing of the filing of this legislation is particularly coincidental it was just filed last week after these uh various courts of ISS issued rulings against the Trump Administration and I don't think any such legislation has been filed uh in the past that would take or rip away from federal district court judges the ability to issue um injunctive
▶ 4:26:29relief that applies across the board more than just to uh the individuals before the court so this is a revolutionary uh extreme proposal that has been put forward uh it has not had benefit of a hearing of uh you know where we can hear from all of the uh various sides if there are any I think there's not too many uh folks who want to
▶ 4:26:59rip away the power of federal district court judges to issue relief um on a broad scale but if there are we certainly would need to hear from them hear their argument and find out what is uh what what is it that compels us to have to change the law uh a law that has a uh a part of the law that uh judges in other words judges have been issuing
▶ 4:27:29Nationwide injunctions for at least a century and uh for us to change uh on a dime that practice that part of our jurist Prudence just doesn't uh uh make good uh sense to me at this particular time particularly since we've not had a uh a hearing on the merits of this legislation so for those reasons I ask that the findings that I'm asking
▶ 4:27:59to be included in the legislation uh be included that this amendment pass because it's important that we have a record of why this legislation is being passed at this particular time and with that I'll yield back to the gentleman from New York no yield back gentleman yields back the question is on the amendment to the amendment in nature is substitute all those in favor say I I those oppose no no in
▶ 4:28:29the opinion of the chair the NOS have it the NOS have it and the amendment is not agreed to the question now occurs on the amendment Mr chairman oh I'm sorry there is someone else yes there is for what Purp purpose of the gentle lady seek recognition um Mr chairman I have an amendment at the desk I thought you might I told you in advance I know you did very kindly I am okay the the clerk will re report the amendment Amendment to the amendment and the nature of a substitute to hr15 the
▶ 4:28:59amendment uh I would unanimous consent amendment the gentleman reserves a point of order uh ask you MERS consent the amendment be suspend the reading and the gentle lady is recognized to explain her um thank you Mr chairman and and also the sponsor um I'm surprised that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are now trying to prevent federal district court judges from issuing Nationwide injunctions they had no issue with such injunctions
▶ 4:29:30two years ago when judge kmer issued a nationwide injunction against the fda's appro approval of abortion medication an injunction riddled with errors and which the Supreme Court later reversed for lack of standing last Congress as the chairman knows I introduced a by Camal Bill the fair courts act which would have helped reform our justice system so cases in which PL of seeking a nationwide
▶ 4:30:00injunction would have to have their case heard by a three-judge panel instead of a lone judge so three judges as FactFinder similar to the amendment that we saw for the AGS my bill would have addressed strategic litigation by plain's filing in specific districts knowing that their case would go in front of a friendly judge who would give them the outcome they wanted along with facts that may not be true unfortunately
▶ 4:30:30Republicans then did not think a single District Court blocking an Administration action Nationwide was a problem now that district court judges appointed by presidents of both parties including president Trump are blocking the new administration's actions it's suddenly a problem for my colleagues on the other side however I still think the problem of Judge shopping is in this bill and could be abused so my
▶ 4:31:01Amendment would ensure that when a plaintiff files a suit in a district court there's no more than a 25% chance that it would go before any particular judge judge I think we can agree that litigants should not be gaming the system by picking their judges in advance and my hope is that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will support my Amendment and I'm happy to answer questions about the details in in many um in many judicial districts
▶ 4:31:31this wouldn't be a problem because they do have random selection but in this particular small Texas Federal District you only get one judge and um lots of people have been going there to seek his wisdom or lack thereof will the G lady y for question yes so if you would explain a bit further when you said there there would be no more than a 25% chance of any particular judge drawing a particular case can you explain how that happens especially if there's just
▶ 4:32:01one judge in that District right so um what would happen is and this is on um it starts on line 10 of page two where you're talking about low population districts and so a low population district is a district doesn't that doesn't have enough judges to ensure the 25% probability so you would use then um starting on line 18 judges from adj adjacent districts so that you would
▶ 4:32:31have enough judges to be able to have this Randomness and you know this may not just apply in this one Texas district it could apply in areas um there would be a particularly liberal judge so this is this is completely agnostic as to who appointed you it's just about not allowing that kind of Judge shopping can you yield for one other question absolutely the um the judge in judge kik's case the the loan judge in a low population District would
▶ 4:33:01they would that judge also be part of the lottery so they could be drawn correct so that we would not be making sure we would not be saying that that judge could never hear these cases we're just saying that basically any litigant couldn't be assured of having that judge so that they may consider filing in a different venue okay now would you connect what you want to do which seems perfectly logical and compelling to the general subject we're talking about which is
▶ 4:33:32injunctions so um my origin my bill that I introduced um last Congress actually is very similar to how we do it in North Carol that if you're going to have a Statewide injunction on something that has to do with a fundamental constitutional issue not necessarily a statutory issue but a constitutional issue that there would be a three-judge panel and that it would actually have to be um politically diverse and geographically diverse in order to be able to have um the
▶ 4:34:02a constitutional issue have that full injunctive relief and but that bill is um was not given a hearing again we had a senate sponsor Senator widen um we it would had we passed it you would have been able to benefit from it this this year so see you should have taken it up in the court subcommittee last Congress we I think we could have gotten bipartisan support but here we are today and um I I would appreciate um the
▶ 4:34:32members supporting this amendment and i y g yield just for a moment I yield even though I'm over my time well I I I I can't see that right now I'm looking at you I I believe the gentleman's going to insist on his uh point of order as not Germain uh but if he does uh because the parliamentarian has whispered to me that that happens to be the case that that it won't be what I will tell you is I support the concept of it if you look at the patent pilot bill which ancient
▶ 4:35:02years ago it specifically tried to do the same thing to prevent somebody grabbing a bill and we have repeatedly reminded the people in both East and West Texas where one judge keeps grabbing bills that that was an intent we wanted to so I'd be happy to work with the gentle lady on a separate bill I will guarantee a hearing in the subcommittee because I do believe that forms of randomization that ensure that you can't Forum shop particularly in
▶ 4:35:33smaller uh areas where it naturally happens absolutely the the general lady is right and is well within our committee's jurisdiction so if I failed to serve you properly in the last Congress I will tell you notwithstanding a vote here today that I will serve you better this Congress well I appreciate that I do believe that this amendment is Germain because I was thinking about just simply substituting my bill from the last Congress in this and was told other parts were not Germain so I do believe that this
▶ 4:36:03amendment is Germain and I would appreciate a vote on that however should I not Prevail I surely would love to introduce this is a bill I thank the gentle lady uh now does the gentleman continue to assist on his point of order the chairman is uncannily read my mind I was just wondering if I could get a palm rating too and if the parliamentarian will rule does the gentleman yes I already that the
▶ 4:36:33gentleman am I recognized Mr chairman gentl the gentleman is recognized to explain ger mainess thank you Mr chair the gentle ladies Amendment would introduce material beyond the scope and purpose of the bill before us and therefore it violates house rule 16 of clause seven I yield back the gentleman yields back does the sponsor of the amendment wish to be heard on the point of of order
▶ 4:37:04that's fine um I I disagree but I'm not going to appeal because I'm going to get my whole own Hearing in the court subcommittee that is true true okay uh I'm now prepared to rule the the the gentle woman's Amendment does not satisfy the subject matter and fundamental purpose test therefore it is not gerain and is ruled out of order but the promise continues who else seeks
▶ 4:37:34recognition the question is on the U Amendment to the amendment I'm sorry next page there we go the question is on adoption of amendment in the nature of a substitute this will be followed immediately by a vote on reporting the bill all those in favor please say I I any opposed no in the opinion of the chair the eyes have it the eyes have it um
▶ 4:38:04hold on the qu the sorry about this I'm having a bad time with the button the question is on favorably reporting the bill as amended all those in favor of that bill please say I I any opposed no ah in the opinion of the chair the eyes have it the eyes seeking recorded vote the gentleman requests a recorded vote the clerk will call the all Mr Jordan Mr Isa I Mr Isa votes I Mr Bigs
▶ 4:38:34Mr mlto Mr mlto votes I Mr Tiffany Mr Massie Roy Mr Fitzgerald Mr Fitzgerald votes I Mr Klein Mr Klein votes I Mr Gooden Mr van Drew Mr Nells Mr Moore Mr Mo votes yes Mr Kylie Miss Hegman Miss Lee
▶ 4:39:05Mr Hunt Mr Fry Mr grathan not Mr Harris Mr and Mr Schmid Mr Schmidt votes I Mr Gil Mr Gil votes I Mr bomgardner Mr Rasin Mr Rasin votes no Mr Nadler Mr Nadler votes no Miss Lofgren Mr
▶ 4:39:35Cohen Mr Johnson Mr Johnson votes no Mr swallow Mr swallow not Mr Lou miss jaal Mr kareah Miss scanland Miss ganin votes no ngus Miss mcbath Miss Ross Miss Ross votes no Miss ballant Miss ballant votes no Mr Garcia Mr Garcia votes no Miss camer Dove Miss cager Dove
▶ 4:40:05votes no Mr moscowitz Mr Goldman Crockett Mr Jordan Mr Jordan votes yes Mr van Drew votes no Mr van Drew votes yes the gentleman from Washington
▶ 4:40:36Mr bomb Garder votes yes I was wondering who else saw recognition there were so many
▶ 4:41:10I e
▶ 4:42:00Mr Gooden votes yes the gentleman from Missouri Mr and votes I
▶ 4:42:50Miss Hagman you are not recorded Miss ha Miss Hegman votes
▶ 4:47:39e e
▶ 4:48:18Mr Fry you're not recorded Mr Fry votes the cler report Mr chairman there are 14 eyes and
▶ 4:48:49nose uh the eyes have it the bill is ordered to be reported favorably to the house members will have two days to submit views without objection the bill is adopted as a single amendment in the nature of a substitute incorporating all adopted amendments the staff will be authorized to make Technical and informing changes this concludes the committee's business the me the markup is a
▶ 4:49:39jur for